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

Ramirez v. Armstrong

The Supreme Court in Oneida County granted the defendants permission to amend their answer to include the Workers’ Compensation Law as an affirmative defense. The plaintiff appealed this decision. The appellate court found no abuse of discretion in the Supreme Court's ruling, noting that the plaintiff was always aware of her employment status and had already received workers’ compensation benefits. Citing precedents such as Murray v City of New York and Caceras v Zorbas, the appellate order was unanimously affirmed without costs.

Affirmative DefenseWorkers' CompensationAmended PleadingsJudicial DiscretionAppellate AffirmationEmployment LawProcedural LawPrejudice and SurpriseWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSupreme Court Appeal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffmeister v. Oaktree Homes, Inc.

This case involves an appeal where the defendant, Oaktree Homes, Inc., challenged a summary judgment granted to the plaintiff in a Labor Law § 240 (1) action. The plaintiff, employed by third-party defendant J.E.B. Contracting, was injured while removing a tarpaulin structure from foundation walls at a construction site. Oaktree Homes argued that the work area was not covered under Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker. The court rejected these arguments, affirming that the structure constituted part of the workplace and that disregarding instructions alone was insufficient to establish the recalcitrant worker defense. The order of the Supreme Court, Orleans County, granting summary judgment to the plaintiff was unanimously affirmed.

Workplace safetyLabor LawSection 240(1)Recalcitrant workerSummary judgmentConstruction accidentFall from heightFoundation wallsModular homeTarpaulin structure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. M.J. Peterson Marina Homes Corp.

The court unanimously affirmed an order without costs, referencing the decision made by Supreme Court, Francis, J. The affirming court disagreed with the original finding concerning questions of fact related to proximate cause. The defendants failed to address the proximate cause issue in response to the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, leading to the conclusion that a Labor Law § 240 violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' decedent's fall. However, the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 claim was properly denied due to factual questions concerning a potential bar by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Labor Law § 240Proximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall AccidentWrongful Death
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Defiance Button Machine Co. & Wholesale & Warehouse Workers Union, Local 65

The order was unanimously affirmed, including $20 for costs and disbursements. No opinion was provided for the decision by the judicial panel.

AffirmationCosts and DisbursementsUnanimous DecisionJudicial PanelAppellate ReviewNo Opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Dumont Electric Corp. & Hammer

The court unanimously affirmed the prior order. No detailed opinion was provided. Justices Peek, Glennon, Dore, Van Voorhis, and Shientag were present. The case is referenced as 278 App. Div. 554.

Appellate DecisionUnanimous AffirmationJudicial PanelCosts and DisbursementsBrief DecisionLegal Precedent
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finerty v. Siegel

Order unanimously affirmed, with twenty dollars costs and disbursements, with leave to the defendant to answer within ten days after service of a copy of the order with notice of entry, upon payment of said costs and the costs awarded by the court at Special Term. No opinion.

Appellate ReviewCosts AwardedProcedural OrderLeave to AnswerSpecial Term CourtUnanimous DecisionCosts and Disbursements
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vercruysse v. Alati

The order from Monroe Supreme Court to dismiss the complaint was unanimously affirmed. The court held that the exclusive remedy provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(6) do not prevent an employee who has received workers' compensation benefits from suing a coemployee for intentional assault. This decision aligns with precedents such as Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept. and Mazarredo v Levine.

Intentional AssaultCoemployee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityCommon-Law Cause of ActionAppellate Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Akins v. Central New York Regional Market Authority

Rodney Akins and other plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit for personal injuries following Akins' fall through a roof during renovation. The defendants, Central New York Regional Market Authority (property owner) and Peter A. S.alato, Inc. (general contractor), appealed an order granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denying their cross-motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court's order was unanimously affirmed with costs. The appellate court rejected the defendants' recalcitrant worker defense, emphasizing that merely instructing a worker to avoid unsafe practices or having safety devices elsewhere on site is insufficient proof. Defendants also failed to demonstrate that the available safety lines were adequate for safe work across the entire roof.

Personal injuryfall from heightrenovation accidentconstruction safetyrecalcitrant worker defenseLabor Lawsummary judgmentliabilityproperty ownergeneral contractor
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pato v. Sweeney Steel Service Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Buffalo Labor Temp, suffered the loss of his right arm due to an overhead crane accident in a building leased by the defendant. He sued the defendant for negligent supervision, failure to warn, and failure to provide a safe workplace, arguing he was not their employee. The defendant counter-argued that the plaintiff was their special employee, making workers' compensation his exclusive remedy. The jury found the plaintiff was not a special employee, the defendant breached its duty to provide a safe workplace, and this breach proximately caused the injuries. The jury also found the plaintiff was not contributorily negligent. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment and order, finding sufficient evidence to support the verdict.

NegligenceSpecial EmploymentSafe Workplace DutyWorkers' Compensation Exclusive RemedyJury VerdictAppellate AffirmanceWorkplace AccidentCrane InjuryErie County CourtLabor Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 21,780 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