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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 1994

Comer v. Titan Tool, Inc.

Plaintiffs Delores Comer and Patricia Edelson, as personal representatives of Michael Comer's estate, brought a diversity action for wrongful death against Titan Tool, Inc., the manufacturer of a paint sprayer Michael Comer was using when he died. Titan Tool, Inc. then filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution from Rock & Waterscape Systems, Inc. (R&W), Comer's employer. R&W moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Florida workers’ compensation law, a death benefit payment to Delores Comer barred further liability. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules and interest analysis, found no basis for applying Florida law as R&W is a California domiciliary. The court denied R&W's motion for summary judgment, stating that triable issues remained regarding the choice of law question between New York and California, as Florida law could not control the case.

wrongful deathsummary judgmentchoice of lawdiversity jurisdictionworkers' compensationdomicileloss allocationtort lawemployer liabilityproduct liability
References
37
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00714 [224 AD3d 1364]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2024

Triest v. Nixon Equip. Servs., Inc.

Paul Triest, an employee, sustained injuries while unloading a loaner alignment jack from a van owned by Nixon Equipment Services, Inc. Triest initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, determined that the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as the incident did not involve an elevation-related risk under the statute. However, the court erred in dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding unresolved factual issues regarding Nixon Equipment Services, Inc.'s control over the work and whether Triest was a volunteer. Consequently, the order was modified to reinstate these two causes of action.

Labor Law §240(1)Labor Law §200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryElevation-Related RiskControl of WorkVolunteer StatusAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
18
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08460 [156 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Clavin v. CAP Equipment Leasing Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court order, dismissing third-party claims for common law indemnification, contribution, and contractual indemnification. The court found that the plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' as defined in Workers' Compensation Law § 11, making common law indemnification and contribution claims unsustainable against the employer. The claim for contractual indemnification was deemed unenforceable under General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, as it would indemnify CAP Rents for its own potential negligence. Additionally, the claim for failure to procure insurance was dismissed because the reservation contract did not expressly and specifically require Schiavone to name CAP Rents as an additional insured. CAP Equipment Leasing Corporation was also found to lack standing to enforce the contract.

indemnificationcontributiongrave injuryWorkers' CompensationGeneral Obligations Lawcontractual indemnificationinsurance procurementadditional insuredsummary judgmentnegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reich v. Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp.

Joseph Kaban was injured in a 1972 automobile accident during employment. He received workers' compensation benefits, and he and his wife sued other parties, Thompson and Mazza, who then brought a third-party action against Kaban's employer, Manhattan Boiler & Equipment Corp. (Manhattan). Due to the insolvency of Thompson and Mazza, the Kabans' judgment went uncollected. In 1992, attorney Louis S. Reich, as an assignee, attempted to collect on the judgment from Manhattan using a Feldman-type loan agreement. The Court of Appeals, however, reversed the lower court's decision, ruling that applying the Feldman mechanism in cases where the third-party defendant is the plaintiff's employer directly conflicts with the public policy of workers' compensation exclusivity, which is the employee's sole remedy for workplace injuries. The Court dismissed the complaint, affirming that such arrangements cannot circumvent the limitations of an employer's liability for contribution.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityThird-Party ActionContribution ClaimIndemnificationLoan AgreementSatisfaction of JudgmentEmployer LiabilityPublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2012

RCN Telecom Services of New York, LP v. Frankel

This case involves petitioners challenging a ruling that their backup power equipment is assessable as real property and contesting tax assessments on that equipment. The petitioners argued that the equipment should not be considered real property under Real Property Tax Law § 102 (12) (f) because it falls under an exception for movable machinery or equipment. They also contended that the equipment should be exempt as telecommunications equipment and that assessments were void due to lack of timely notice. The court modified the lower court's decision, declaring that the backup power equipment is assessable as real property and that the assessments are not nullities for lack of notice.

real propertytax assessmentbackup power equipmentpower generating apparatusmovable machinerytelecommunications equipmentRPTLstatutory interpretationsummary judgmentNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 1997

Delio v. Percom Equipment Rental Corp.

Cono Delio, Jr., an employee of Perez Interboro Asphalt Co., sustained personal injuries during employment from a dump truck rented from Percom Equipment Rental Corp. The plaintiffs sued Percom, alleging negligent maintenance. The Supreme Court denied Percom's motion for summary judgment, citing that Perez Interboro's Workers’ Compensation immunity did not shield Percom. However, the appellate court reversed the decision, determining that Perez Interboro was responsible for vehicle maintenance under its rental agreement with Percom. The plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of negligence by Percom, leading to the granting of summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjuryNegligenceSummary JudgmentRental AgreementVehicle MaintenanceAppellate ReversalThird-Party ActionEmployer LiabilityKings CountyDump Truck Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Thomson v. Brute Spring & Equipment, Inc.

Claimant, an employee of Brute Spring & Equipment, Inc., sustained injuries while trimming trees at the private residence of Howard Besecker, the company's owner. Besecker's homeowner's insurance company disclaimed coverage. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found the homeowner's insurer responsible, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, holding Brute Spring's workers' compensation carrier, One Beacon Insurance, liable. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the injury did not occur within the course of claimant's employment with Brute Spring. The court determined that the work performed exclusively benefited Besecker personally and was unrelated to Brute Spring's business operations, thus falling outside the scope of the carrier's policy.

Scope of EmploymentInsurance Coverage DisputeAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePersonal Benefit RuleEmployer LiabilityCarrier ResponsibilityTree Trimming AccidentWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionOff-premises Work
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Khan v. Douglas MacHine & Tool Co., Inc.

Subhan Khan sued Douglas Machine & Tool Company, Inc. and TurboCombustor Technology, Inc. for failure to pay sums due under a debenture. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Khan violated a Subordination Agreement by attempting to collect on a junior debt without the senior creditor's consent. Khan cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the Subordination Agreement was invalidly assigned or that the senior debt had been paid. The court found the Subordination Agreement validly assigned and in force, and that Khan failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence that the senior debt was extinguished. Consequently, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Khan's action, while denying Khan's cross-motion.

Summary JudgmentDebentureSubordination AgreementContract LawAssignment of ContractCorporate Veil PiercingOhio LawNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. MODERN HANDLING EQUIPMENT OF NJ, INC.

Plaintiff Newton Rodriguez was injured while operating a forklift at his employer American Specialties, Inc. He subsequently sued Starlift Equipment Company, Inc., alleging negligence in the repair and maintenance of the forklift's brakes. Starlift moved for summary judgment, contending that the forklift it repaired was not the one involved in the accident. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, found that there was a genuine issue of material fact concerning the identity of the forklift and whether Starlift's actions, particularly its alleged negligent repairs, could be considered 'launching a force or instrument of harm' under New York law, thereby establishing a duty of care to Rodriguez. Consequently, the court denied Starlift's motion for summary judgment, ruling that these questions should be reserved for a jury.

Summary JudgmentForklift AccidentNegligenceDuty of CareThird-Party LiabilityMoch ExceptionMaterial Issue of FactExpert TestimonyHearsay ExceptionBusiness Records
References
23
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00660
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Jones v. General Traffic Equip. Corp.

Claimant Renford Jones, who sustained a work-related back injury resulting in a permanent partial disability, sought a hearing to modify his reduced earnings awards. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) modified the awards. The employer, General Traffic Equipment Corp., and the State Insurance Fund (SIF) appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for Board review was denied due to alleged incompleteness, specifically the omission of the hearing date for their objection. SIF's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that SIF's response, which provided the exact time of the objection in the digital audio recording of the sole hearing, adequately met the regulatory requirements. The court remitted the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its decision, dismissing the appeal from the denial of reconsideration as academic.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ProcedureBoard ReviewRegulatory InterpretationAppellate ReviewProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeDigital Audio RecordingPleadings and MotionsDisability Benefits
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 528 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