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

Torres v. City of New York

Wilfredo Torres, a former New York City Department of Corrections (DOC) officer, filed a complaint against the City of New York and several DOC officials. Torres alleged that DOC’s sick leave policy was unconstitutional and asserted claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for First, Fourth, and Fourteenth Amendment violations, along with state law claims for medical malpractice, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and negligent hiring and retention. After the court initially dismissed some claims, Torres later dismissed all federal claims except for equal protection and requested remand of state claims. The court, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction, dismissed Torres’s Equal Protection Claim with prejudice and the remaining state law claims without prejudice.

Corrections OfficerSick Leave PolicyConstitutional Law42 U.S.C. § 1983First AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEqual ProtectionMedical MalpracticeIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torres v. Astrue

Orlando Torres, the plaintiff, initiated this action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and 1383(c)(3) to challenge the final determination by the Commissioner of Social Security, which found him not disabled and thus ineligible for supplemental security income and disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff had previously filed applications in 2004, alleging disability due to various impairments, which were denied by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and subsequently by the Appeals Council. Both parties filed motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court, reviewing the ALJ's five-step disability evaluation process and the substantial evidence standard, ultimately concluded that the ALJ's determination was supported by sufficient evidence. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion was granted, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed, upholding the finding that Orlando Torres is not disabled.

Social Security ActDisability BenefitsSupplemental Security IncomeAdministrative Law JudgeResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleSubstantial Evidence ReviewBack ImpairmentSpondylolisthesisChronic Pain
References
25
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01279 [227 AD3d 113]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2024

Torres-Quito v. 1711 LLC

Plaintiff Johnny Torres-Quito sustained head injuries from a falling brick while assisting in unloading ductwork at a construction site. The accident occurred in a delivery zone directly below an exterior scaffold where masonry work was ongoing, with no horizontal netting or overhead protection in place. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the motion court's order, granting plaintiff summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to the lack of adequate safety devices. The court dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) and § 200 claims against Ryder and the third third-party complaint against CRSG, while also granting conditional summary judgment to 1711 and Ryder on their contractual indemnification claim against P.I. Mechanical Corp. (PIMC).

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety DevicesContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor NegligenceGeneral Contractor LiabilityAppellate Division
References
18
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08467 [156 AD3d 410]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2017

Torres v. Love Lane Mews, LLC

In this appellate case, Hilarion Torres, a construction worker, was allegedly injured by falling bricks at a construction site involving Love Lane Mews, LLC and Red Hook Construction Group-I, LLC. The Supreme Court initially denied Torres's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, dismissed Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Red Hook, and dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. It also granted Love Lane's motion for contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Galaxy General Contracting Corp. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Red Hook due to unresolved factual issues regarding Red Hook's control over the injury-producing work. All other aspects of the Supreme Court's decision were affirmed.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectsLabor LawSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationVicarious LiabilityAppellate Division First DepartmentBronx County Supreme CourtDemolition WorkWorkplace Safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00704 [202 AD3d 1177]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Matter of Torres v. C & S Wholesale

Brandon Torres, a claimant, appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. Previously, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge had found no medical evidence of a work-related injury, disallowing the claim. The Board denied reconsideration due to Torres's failure to comply with proof of service requirements under 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (2). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion, as Torres, despite being represented by counsel, personally served the employer's carrier, violating the rule that a party in interest cannot effectuate service.

Workers' CompensationAppealReconsideration DeniedProof of ServiceOccupational InjuryAdministrative ReviewAbuse of DiscretionThird DepartmentAppellate DivisionBoard Review
References
1
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Torres

Carlos Torres, charged with drug trafficking and firearms offenses, moved for reconsideration of his detention order, arguing that a key cooperating witness, Frederick Rolle, had been discredited. U.S. Magistrate Judge Payson had initially ordered Torres detained due to danger to the community, a decision affirmed by U.S. District Judge Larimer. Despite Rolle's testimony being discounted after he failed a lie detector test, Judge Payson maintained that the remaining evidence—including corroboration from a confidential informant, seized evidence from Torres's home (cocaine, shotgun, bulletproof vest, cash), and evidence of unexplained wealth—still strongly supported his detention. The court found that no conditions could adequately assure community safety if Torres were released. Therefore, Torres's motion for reconsideration was denied, and his detention was continued.

DetentionReconsiderationVacaturDanger to CommunityRisk of FlightDrug TraffickingFirearms OffenseCocaineConfidential InformantCooperating Witness
References
2
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05466 [129 AD3d 1058]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2015

Torres v. St. Francis College

Oscar Torres, a janitor, sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder while cleaning a basketball backboard at St. Francis College. He, along with his wife, brought an action against St. Francis College alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing these causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, finding that the injured plaintiff's work constituted routine maintenance not covered by Labor Law § 240 (1). The court also found no evidence that the defendant created or had notice of a dangerous condition, or had the authority to supervise the plaintiff's work methods, thus dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewRoutine MaintenanceElevation RisksCommon-Law NegligenceLadder FallPremises Liability
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 20,480 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