CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moll v. US Life Title Insurance Co. of New York

The case involves plaintiffs Moll, Elser, McGuire, and Harlow suing US Life Title Insurance Company of New York, asserting claims under RESPA, RICO, and state laws. Plaintiffs alleged misrepresentation, failure to disclose kickbacks to attorneys, and aiding and abetting fraud related to title insurance premiums. The court found plaintiffs failed to adequately allege mail fraud or commercial bribery as predicate acts for RICO claims, citing insufficient evidence of misrepresentation, a duty to disclose, substantial assistance in fraud, or economic harm due to non-negotiable premiums. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the Consolidated Complaint was granted, leave to replead was denied, and pendent state law claims were dismissed for lack of federal jurisdiction.

RICO ActRESPA ActMail FraudCommercial BriberyFraud AllegationsMotion to DismissPendent State ClaimsRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Title Insurance
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lang v. FIRST AMERICAN TITLE INS. CO. OF NEW YORK

Plaintiffs Cliff and Betsy Lang filed a putative class action against First American Title Insurance Company of New York, alleging violations of the Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA) and New York General Business Law § 349. The plaintiffs claimed they were overcharged for title insurance during a mortgage refinancing, as they did not receive a discounted rate they believed they were entitled to under state law. Defendant moved to dismiss the RESPA claim, arguing that RESPA § 8(b) does not provide a private right of action for 'overcharges'. The court granted the motion to dismiss the RESPA claim, finding that RESPA § 8(b) prohibits fees for unperformed services or splits, not simply excessive charges. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

RESPATitle InsuranceMortgage RefinancingOvercharge ClaimsMotion to DismissFederal CourtState LawSupplemental JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationPleading Standards
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2003

C.S.E.A. v. County of Dutchess

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by the County of Dutchess dated September 23, 2002, which reclassified job title duties for Social Welfare Worker II employees. The petitioners also sought to enjoin the County from mandating these employees to perform out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, presided over by Justice Pagones, granted the petition. On appeal, the judgment of the Supreme Court was affirmed. The reviewing court found the County's reclassification determination to be arbitrary and capricious, as it lacked a rational basis, was not based on a proper investigation, violated the rules of the Classified Service of Dutchess County, Personnel Policy Manual Rule XXII, and improperly attempted to validate previously imposed out-of-title work.

Job ReclassificationOut-of-Title WorkCPLR Article 78Administrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousPersonnel PolicyJudicial ReviewGovernment EmployeesEmployment LawPublic Sector
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finn-Verburg v. New York State Department of Labor

Plaintiff Madeline Finn-Verburg sued the New York State Department of Labor (DOL), alleging gender-based employment discrimination, including sexual harassment, under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, New York Civil Service Law, New York Human Rights Law, and state common law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the hostile work environment at DOL was based on Finn-Verburg’s gender and concerning the elements of the Faragher defense. Consequently, the court denied the motion to dismiss the hostile work environment and sexual harassment claims under Title VII. However, all other claims, including those under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, New York Civil Service Law, New York Human Rights Law, state common law, and the Title VII retaliation claim, were dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 2000eGender DiscriminationFaragher DefenseRetaliation ClaimNew York Human Rights Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC

This case involves Patrice Benjamin and Brenda Thomas (Plaintiffs) suing Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (Defendant) for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York Human Rights Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, while the Plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint. The court dismissed Brenda Thomas's Title VII and NYSHRL claims entirely and limited Patrice Benjamin's Title VII and NYSHRL claims for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment to actions occurring after December 21, 2002. The court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' Section 1983/Bivens claims but denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Benjamin's ADA claim. Finally, the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the complaint was granted in part, allowing for the inclusion of a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 cause of action for both plaintiffs, along with specific, limited claims for Benjamin in the amended complaint.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1981Judgment on the PleadingsAmending Complaint
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2008

Brown v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiff Curtis Brown, an African-American Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and other defendants, alleging severe and continual racial harassment, discrimination, and retaliation by his white coworkers. He filed multiple administrative charges and then commenced this action asserting claims under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1983, and the New York State Human Rights Law. The court addressed the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims against individual defendants under Title VII, various institutional defendants, all constructive discharge claims, and state law claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or the election of remedies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, and his 42 U.S.C. § 1981 claims against individual defendants, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the pervasive nature of harassment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983Eleventh AmendmentSummary Judgment MotionCorrectional Services
References
76
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02617
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2019

Matter of Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP v. Title

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a dispute over cash proceeds from the demutualization of Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC). Petitioner, Schaffer, Schonholz & Drossman, LLP, purchased the professional liability insurance policy and paid all associated premiums. Respondent, Rachel S. Title, M.D., was the named insured but did not contribute to the policy costs. The Court declared that the petitioner is entitled to the cash proceeds, including accrued interest, and directed the Clerk of Supreme Court, New York County, to enter judgment accordingly. The decision affirmed that awarding the proceeds to the respondent would constitute unjust enrichment, as she did not pay for the policy or bargain for the demutualization benefits.

Demutualization proceedsProfessional liability insuranceUnjust enrichmentInsurance policyPremium paymentsAppellate DivisionCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
2
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Pacheco v. 32-42 55th St. Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Galo Pacheco, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from scaffolding at a construction site owned by 32-42 55th Street Realty, LLC. He commenced an action against the owner and B Green Construction Corp., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion for summary judgment on liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion. The Appellate Division found that B Green Construction Corp. was a statutory agent of the owner due to its authority to supervise and control the work, and that the plaintiff established, prima facie, that his fall was caused by defective scaffolding. The court reiterated that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes a nondelegable duty and absolute liability on owners, general contractors, and their agents for elevation-related risks, and that contributory negligence is not a defense.

Scaffolding AccidentConstruction Site InjuryLabor Law Section 240(1)Statutory AgentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilityElevation-Related Risk
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuentes v. City of New York Human Resources Administration

This employment discrimination case involves a Special Security Officer of the New York City Human Resources Administration (the agency) who claims he was denied promotion due to Hispanic national origin under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The plaintiff alleged non-promotion in 1986 and 1987. The agency moved for summary judgment, asserting the claims were time-barred and lacked merit. The court granted the agency's motion to dismiss claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and monetary relief claims under Title VII as time-barred. However, the court denied summary judgment for the surviving portion of the plaintiff's case, which pertains to injunctive relief and attorney's fees.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Promotion DenialNational Origin DiscriminationHispanicTime-Barred ClaimsSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefAttorney's Fees
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,349 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational