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. 2023 NY Slip Op 05661 [221 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2023

Keilitz v. Light Tower Fiber N.Y., Inc.

Christopher Keilitz, an electrician working for Hellman Electric Corp., was injured when a vacuum fell into a manhole and struck him during the installation of fiber optic cables. Keilitz sued Light Tower Fiber New York, Inc., Verizon New York, Inc., Verizon Communications, Inc., and Empire City Subway (ECS) under New York Labor Law. The Supreme Court initially denied Keilitz's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims and dismissed claims against the defendants. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Keilitz partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against ECS and Light Tower. The court determined that Keilitz's work constituted an 'altering' activity under the statute and that the falling vacuum presented an elevation-related risk, rendering other related claims moot.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskManhole AccidentFiber Optic InstallationAlteration WorkAppellate DivisionThird-Party ClaimContractual Indemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1988

Miller v. Long Island Lighting Co.

The plaintiffs appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, entered May 17, 1988, which affirmed a jury verdict in favor of the defendant, Long Island Lighting Co. The case stemmed from a personal injury claim by Thomas Miller, who allegedly fell from a ladder at the Shoreham Nuclear Power Station on March 24, 1980. Miller's testimony was inconsistent, and the plaintiffs failed to establish their entitlement to judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), which mandates proper safety devices for workers. The trial court's refusal to direct judgment in the plaintiffs' favor and its denial of a motion to set aside the verdict were upheld, as the resolution of credibility and accuracy issues is within the jury's province, and the decision was based on a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Absolute LiabilityProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCredibilitySuffolk County
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Lighting Co. v. County of Suffolk, NY

The plaintiff, Long Island Lighting Company (LILCO), sued the County of Suffolk, alleging inverse condemnation of its Shoreham nuclear power plant and breach of contract, seeking a $4 billion judgment. LILCO claimed the County obstructed its efforts to license the plant by refusing to participate in emergency planning. The defendants moved to dismiss. The court found LILCO's inverse condemnation claim not ripe for judicial review, as it depended on uncertain future events like the NRC denying a license. Consequently, the federal constitutional claim was dismissed. The related state law breach of contract claim was also dismissed due to the dismissal of the federal claim.

Inverse CondemnationBreach of ContractRipeness DoctrineDeclaratory JudgmentFederal JurisdictionNuclear Power PlantEmergency PlanningShoreham Nuclear Power StationSuffolk CountyNRC Licensing
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1996

In Re the Arbitration Between Nuclear Electric Insurance Ltd. & Central Power & Light Co.

This case concerns a petition by Nuclear Electric Insurance Limited (NEIL) to compel Central Power and Light (CPL) to arbitrate a dispute arising from an insurance policy and to stay CPL's ongoing state court action in Texas. NEIL, a Bermuda corporation, had issued an extra expense policy to CPL, a Texas corporation, which included a broad arbitration clause mandating arbitration in New York City for most disputes. Despite this, CPL filed a breach of contract suit in a Texas state court after NEIL denied its claim for losses. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York rejected CPL's arguments for abstention and found that the arbitration clause was enforceable. Consequently, the court granted NEIL's petition, compelling arbitration and enjoining CPL from continuing its Texas state court proceedings.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract DisputeInsurance PolicyStay of ProceedingsJurisdictionAbstention DoctrineChoice of LawEnforceabilityFraud in the Inducement
References
54
Case No. ADJ9623149
Regular
Jun 25, 2018

ADAM PALSGROVE vs. CITY OF PALO ALTO, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a firefighter diagnosed with basal cell carcinoma, claiming it's industrially caused under the Labor Code section 3212.1 presumption. The defendant employer attempted to rebut this presumption by arguing the cancer's latency period exceeded the applicant's employment duration. However, medical evidence indicated that cumulative exposure to UV light during employment contributed to the cancer's development. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding the employer failed to rebut the presumption of industrial causation based on this medical evidence.

Labor Code 3212.1Firefighter presumptionBasal cell carcinomaIndustrial causationRebuttal of presumptionKnown carcinogenLatency periodCumulative effectUV light exposureMedical evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 25, 2001

Adair v. Bestek Lighting & Staging Corp.

Plaintiff, a stagehand, was injured when a man-lift fell while she was focusing overhead lights above a temporary stage. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied her motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. On appeal, the order was modified to grant summary judgment dismissing plaintiff’s Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and otherwise affirmed. The court held that the activity of focusing already-installed lights did not constitute "erection" or "altering" of a structure within the meaning of Labor Law § 240 (1), explicitly rejecting the "integral and necessary" test for expanding the statute's scope. The dissenting justices argued that the light-focusing was a required step in completing the construction of the temporary stage and therefore fell within the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing it from routine maintenance or minor alterations.

Stagehand InjuryMan-lift AccidentLabor LawStatutory InterpretationConstruction Site SafetySummary Judgment DismissalAppellate ReviewIntegral and Necessary DoctrineErection ActivitiesAltering Activities
References
12
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Valley Stream v. State of New York Public Service Commission

The Village of Valley Stream initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Public Service Commission's (PSC) determination upholding Long Island Lighting Company's (LILCO) decision to terminate street lighting service. LILCO, citing abnormal expenditures due to cable failure and wear and tear, refused to replace the system and ceased service. The PSC interpreted LILCO's tariff to allow termination under such circumstances, a decision the court found rational. The court balanced LILCO's significant economic loss against minimal public harm, considering viable alternatives for the village and new legal requirements for public bids and prevailing wages, ultimately confirming the PSC's determination and dismissing the village's petition.

Street Lighting ServiceUtility TerminationPublic Service Commission ReviewTariff InterpretationAbnormal ExpenditureEconomic LossPublic InterestCPLR Article 78Utility RegulationCable Failure
References
7
Case No. VNO 0434512
Regular
Jun 02, 2008

WENDI WAGNER, WENDI WAGNER BREDDAN vs. LAW OFFICES OF MICHAEL THOMAS, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, FREMONT COMPENSATION INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended a previous award, finding the applicant sustained industrial injury causing $69\%$ permanent disability, not $86\%$. This adjustment stemmed from a re-evaluation of the medical expert's opinion regarding work restrictions, particularly concerning environmental factors like light and noise. The Board concluded that the expert's intent was to restrict exposure to excessive bright lights and noise, rather than a completely silent, dark room, which led to the revised rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryAggravation of Chronic Pain SyndromePermanent DisabilityApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerFibromyalgiaWork RestrictionsDisability Evaluation UnitReconsideration
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Matter of Granville v. Town of Hamburg

Claimant, a laborer and light equipment operator, filed for workers' compensation benefits in May 2013, alleging occupational hearing loss from loud noise exposure during his employment from 2003 to 2012. Both a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that claimant suffered a causally-related binaural loss of hearing. The self-insured employer and its third-party administrator appealed, contending that the record lacked evidence of injurious noise exposure and a causal link. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, giving deference to the Board's finding that the opinion of the treating otolaryngologist, Sayeed Nabi, was more credible. Nabi had concluded that the significant improvement in claimant's hearing after cessation of employment indicated noise-induced hearing loss.

Occupational Hearing LossNoise ExposureCausal RelationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsBinaural Hearing LossMedical EvidenceTreating PhysicianConflicting Medical OpinionsAppellate ReviewBoard Decision Affirmed
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 952 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