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. 2015-877 N CR
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

People v. Todd (Norman)

Defendant Norman Todd was convicted of stalking in the fourth degree. The charges arose from three incidents in 2012 where he made inappropriate comments to a McDonald's employee and accosted her while she walked home. The District Court denied motions to suppress his statement and identification testimony. On appeal, the judgment of conviction was reversed and remitted for a new trial. The Appellate Term found the information and evidence sufficient. However, the court ruled that the trial court erred in its Sandoval ruling by permitting inquiry into a 27-year-old attempted rape conviction, deeming it unduly prejudicial. Additionally, the court erred in denying a challenge for cause to a prospective juror who stated he could not promise to be impartial due to having a daughter.

Stalking in the Fourth DegreePenal Law § 120.45(1)Sufficiency of InformationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceProbable Cause for ArrestPhoto Array SuggestivenessSandoval RulingJury SelectionChallenge for Cause
References
36
Case No. ADJ2112759 (ANA 0406243)
Regular
Feb 22, 2009

Matt Todd vs. INTERNATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SERVICES, THE HARTFORD

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a finding that applicant Matt Todd sustained an industrial injury during his commute. The Board determined that Todd's motorcycle accident en route from the Union Hall to the employer's premises was barred by the "going and coming" rule. Todd failed to establish that the trip was an extraordinary mission or that the commute involved a special risk distinct from the general public. Furthermore, the Board found insufficient evidence that the Union Hall acted as the employer's agent in dispatching Todd.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryMotorcycle AccidentCommuteUnion HallCasual LaborerGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission DoctrineSpecial Risk Exception
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bottalico v. Todd Shipyards Corp.

An employee of International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. (ITOC) sued South African Marine Corp., Ltd. and Todd Shipyards Corp. for personal injuries sustained during stevedoring operations. Todd Shipyards Corp., one of the defendants, filed a third-party complaint against ITOC, seeking contribution or indemnification for alleged negligence. ITOC moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, asserting immunity under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), arguing that as a compensation-paying employer, it is shielded from such claims. The court reviewed the LHWCA's provisions, particularly the 1972 amendments to section 905(b) which limits vessel owners' rights to indemnity from employers, and precedent regarding non-vessel third parties. Ultimately, the court determined that the LHWCA immunizes compensation-paying employers from third-party claims by non-vessels, and therefore granted ITOC's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

LHWCAThird-Party ActionEmployer ImmunityIndemnificationContributionFederal Maritime LawNon-Vessel LiabilityStevedoringWorkers' CompensationCPLR 3211
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Archie v. Todd Shipyards Corp.

This case involves an appeal concerning a wrongful death action. The administratrix of a decedent’s estate sued Todd Shipyards Corporation after the decedent, an employee of Metalock Repair Service, Inc., drowned in a drydock. The decedent was working on a scaffold without guard rails or toe boards, in violation of multiple codes including the New York City Building Code, State Industrial Code, and Labor Law § 240(2). The original complaint was dismissed at the close of the plaintiff’s case. The appellate court found sufficient evidence of the defendant’s negligence, including statutory violations, to warrant submission to a jury. Citing legal precedents, the court emphasized a less stringent burden of proof in death actions and that contributory negligence is a defense for the defendant to prove. The judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously reversed, and the matter was remanded for a new trial.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceScaffold SafetyLabor Law ViolationsCircumstantial EvidencePrima Facie CaseDismissal ReversedRemanded for New TrialContributory NegligenceCustom and Usage
References
7
Case No. ADJ218106 (VNO 0430348)
Regular
Mar 09, 2009

TODD RIGIONE vs. CINECOM COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves applicant Todd Rigione's petition for reconsideration or removal. Rigione alleged fraud or mistake in a prior order taking the matter off calendar and awarding $200 for out-of-pocket expenses. The Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration because the prior order was an interlocutory procedural one, not a final determination of substantive rights. The Board also denied removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to the applicant.

WCABRigioneCinecom CompanyState Compensation Insurance FundADJ218106Petition for ReconsiderationRemovalOff calendarJoint requestOut-of-pocket expenses
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wider v. Heritage Maintenance, Inc.

Plaintiff Todd Wider brought an action against his insurer, Paramount Insurance Company, and Heritage Maintenance, Inc., for property damage caused by Heritage's negligent cleaning work. Paramount disclaimed coverage, prompting Wider to sue for breach of policy. Paramount moved for summary judgment, asserting policy exclusions for rain damage and faulty workmanship/maintenance. The court partially granted Paramount's motion, finding the faulty workmanship exclusion applied to damage from August 2004 but not the September 2004 incident, as the rain limitation was inapplicable due to Heritage's role in tarp placement.

Insurance PolicyProperty DamageSummary JudgmentFaulty WorkmanshipFaulty MaintenanceRain ExclusionCommercial PolicyCoverage DisputeProximate CauseContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06976 [211 AD3d 1214]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Whiting v. Nau

Plaintiff Alan Whiting sustained an ankle injury while working on a barn renovation project for defendants Todd Nau and Scott Dolphin. Plaintiff commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the homeowners' exemption. The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' cross-motion by dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, but denied both motions regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), finding material questions of fact. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that factual disputes persist regarding the number of units in the renovated barn, its classification as a one- or two-family dwelling, and the defendants' intent for commercial use, thereby precluding a determination of the homeowners' exemption as a matter of law.

Labor LawHomeowners' ExemptionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentStatutory InterpretationQuestions of FactDual Use PropertyProperty Renovation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acciardo v. Millennium Securities Corp.

Raymond J. Acciardo, the Petitioner-Respondent, sought confirmation of an arbitration award granted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. The award compensated Acciardo for wrongful discharge and defamation, including punitive damages against Millennium Securities Corporation and its senior management. Respondents-Cross-Petitioners Millennium, Todd Rome, Richard A. Sitomer, and Pamela L. Rockley petitioned to vacate the award, alleging the arbitrators acted in manifest disregard of the law concerning Form U-5 immunity and excessive punitive damages. The Court, presided over by Judge Batts in the Southern District of New York, upheld the arbitration award. It found no manifest disregard of the law, citing conflicting legal precedents on U-5 immunity and affirming the arbitrators' finding of malice and authority to award punitive damages.

Arbitration AwardConfirmationVacaturFederal Arbitration ActEmployment TerminationDefamationForm U-5Qualified PrivilegePunitive DamagesCompensatory Damages
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Turner v. New York Rosbruch/Harnik, Inc.

Plaintiffs Todd and Erin Turner sued New York Rosbruch/Harnik (NYRH) and the Estate of Alvin Russell Lewis, an NYRH employee, alleging fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting fraud, and violations of the RICO Act. Plaintiffs claimed Defendants misrepresented investments for short-term, high-interest loans, leading to significant financial hardship. Defendant NYRH moved to dismiss the claims, specifically the civil RICO claim, for failure to state a claim and failure to satisfy pleading requirements. The court granted NYRH's motion, dismissing the RICO claim with prejudice due to insufficient pleading under Rule 9(b) and failure to establish a cognizable RICO violation. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. The request for leave to replead was denied as futile.

FraudRICO ActMotion to DismissPleading RequirementsRule 9(b) FRCPWire FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutySupplemental JurisdictionInvestment FraudFinancial Advisor Misconduct
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheriff's Silver Star Ass'n of Oswego County, Inc. v. County of Oswego

Female correction officers and the Sheriffs Silver Star Association sued Oswego County, Charles Nellis, and Reuel Todd under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Executive Law § 296, challenging the sex-segregation policy at the Oswego County Correctional Facility. The plaintiffs alleged that the policy, which prohibited female COs from male housing units and vice-versa, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The defendants justified the policy by an alleged mandate from New York law, specifically N.Y. County Law § 652(2). The court found that the defendants' interpretation of the state law was errant, as the law only requires the presence of same-gender COs, not a prohibition on cross-gender assignments. The court disregarded the county's post hoc justifications of inmate privacy and prevention of sexual harassment. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on municipal liability, declared the sex-segregation policy unconstitutional, and dismissed the official-capacity claims against Nellis and Todd, denying the county's cross-motion.

Sex DiscriminationEqual ProtectionSection 1983Municipal LiabilityCorrectional FacilityGender SegregationSummary JudgmentPublic EmploymentOfficial CapacityState Law Misinterpretation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 39 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