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

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
Case No. ADJ8075448
Regular
Oct 10, 2017

ALEX ROBLES vs. SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA GAS COMPANY, UTILITY WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a trial judge's award in favor of applicant Alex Robles against Southern California Gas Company (SCGC). SCGC sought reconsideration, asserting that crucial testimony was omitted from the trial record. The WCAB ordered transcription of all trial testimony to ensure a full and fair adjudication of SCGC's petition. This action was necessary to allow the Board further study of the factual and legal issues involved.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAOE/COEGoing and Coming RuleMinutes of HearingSummary of EvidenceTrial TestimonyWCAB Rule 10740Transcript TranscriptionElectronic Adjudication Management System
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Okeke v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

Plaintiffs Ifeanyichukwu E. Okeke, Jerry Baglione, Iqbal Bajwa, Adel Mahmoud, Naeem U. Qureshi, and Abel De La Trinidad sued The New York and Presbyterian Hospital for age discrimination and hostile work environment under federal, state, and city laws. A jury found the Hospital liable on NYCHRL claims for age-related termination, denial of training, and hostile work environment, but not under federal and state law. The Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The Court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, granted in part and denied in part the motion for a new trial (specifically granting a new trial on the NYCHRL termination claims), and denied the motion for remittitur as moot. The hostile work environment claim under NYCHRL was sustained.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentNYCHRLADEAMixed-Motive DiscriminationJury VerdictRule 50 MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturDenial of Training
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 1971

Enea v. Kuhn, Smith & Harris, Inc.

In a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries, the defendant, a general contractor, appealed from a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, an iron worker. The plaintiff was injured when a brick under his foot gave way while he was guiding a steel beam on a construction site. The case was submitted to the jury on theories of the defendant's alleged failure to exercise reasonable care in bricklaying and liability under Labor Law section 200. The appellate court found that the trial court erred in charging Labor Law section 200, as there was no proof the accident occurred in a place of work provided by the defendant. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and a new trial was granted.

NegligencePersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawGeneral Contractor LiabilityJury Charge ErrorNew TrialAppellate ProcedureQueens CountyIron Worker
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vergara v. Scripps Howard, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of The New York Times, sustained severe leg and back injuries in 1989 when his trousers were caught by a conveyor, pulling him into machinery. The accident occurred because the Times had removed safety guards originally welded onto the machine by the manufacturer's predecessor. Plaintiff sued Rockwell International Corporation, the successor to the manufacturer, alleging failure to warn about the danger of removing the safety guards. The trial court denied Rockwell's motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict but modified the damages award. On appeal, the court reversed the trial court's decision, finding insufficient evidence that Rockwell had notice of the dangerous modification made by the Times, either actually or constructively, and thus no duty to warn existed. The court concluded the accident was caused by the employer's negligence, not Rockwell's, and dismissed the complaint.

Workers' Compensation LawProduct LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityDuty to WarnNegligenceMachine ModificationSafety GuardsAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2018

Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co.

This case involves a lawsuit by eight Black property owners against Emigrant Mortgage Company and Emigrant Bank, alleging predatory "STAR NINA" loans that targeted minority communities. Plaintiffs claimed these loans were designed to strip home equity by imposing an onerous 18% interest rate upon late payment, a calculated plan given the borrowers' low credit scores and lack of sophistication. A jury found Emigrant liable for violating the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and New York City Human Rights Law, awarding compensatory damages. Following the verdict, both parties filed post-trial motions. The court granted in part and denied in part both defendants' and plaintiffs' motions, notably finding the Saintils' waiver unenforceable due to public policy and ordering a new trial on damages for all plaintiffs, citing inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the original awards.

Predatory LendingSubprime MortgagesRacial DiscriminationFair Housing ActEqual Credit Opportunity ActNew York City Human Rights LawJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsDamagesNew Trial
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2010

In re Allen Children

The Department of Social Services (DSS) moved to reopen a trial to admit a certificate of conviction from Town of Sandy Creek Justice Court against the respondent father, Mr. Allen, for endangering the welfare of a child. The original neglect petition against Mr. Allen had been dismissed. The court considered factors for reopening a trial, including the sufficiency of the offer of proof, potential prejudice, and whether the evidence would add to the record. The court denied the motion, finding that while the conduct in both proceedings was similar and Mr. Allen had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the criminal action, the conviction for endangering the welfare of a child did not, by itself, prove actual or imminent physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the child, which is a required element for a finding of neglect under Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B). Therefore, the certificate of conviction lacked collateral estoppel effect and would not provide new evidence or add anything to the record.

Reopening TrialCollateral EstoppelNeglect PetitionChild EndangermentCertificate of ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceFamily Court JurisdictionParental Minimum Degree of CarePrejudiceOffer of Proof
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 5,341 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