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

Cruz v. Liberatore

Plaintiff Victor Cruz, a Puerto Rican police officer, filed suit against Louis Liberatore, Thomas Belfiore, the WCPD, and Westchester County, alleging claims including hostile work environment, failure to train and supervise, and retaliation. Cruz claimed Inspector Liberatore made discriminatory remarks, humiliated him, and physically assaulted him. After filing an EEOC complaint and an internal investigation, Cruz was transferred, which he asserted was retaliatory. The court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing some hostile work environment and retaliation claims to proceed while dismissing others, including those against Liberatore in his official capacity and the Title VII hostile work environment claim against the WCPD/County.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationSection 1983Title VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentPolice MisconductEthnic DiscriminationWorkplace Harassment
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. McAneney

Patricia McAneney died intestate on September 11, 2001. Her brother, James E McAneney, filed a claim with the 9/11 Victim Compensation Fund. Patricia's domestic partner, Margaret Cruz, also sought compensation from the fund. The Fund increased the award by $253,454 to acknowledge Cruz's domestic partnership, intending this portion for her. However, the full award of $531,541.42 was distributed to James E McAneney, who refused to disburse any part to Cruz. Cruz then sued McAneney to compel disbursement based on constructive trust and unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court denied McAneney's motion to dismiss, and this appellate court affirmed that denial, ruling that New York law and federal legislation intended to compensate surviving domestic partners, making Cruz's claims viable and McAneney's actions inconsistent with good faith.

September 11th Victim Compensation FundDomestic PartnershipConstructive TrustUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewEstate DistributionFiduciary DutyStatutory InterpretationEquitable Remedies
References
14
Case No. ADJ17686288
Regular
May 07, 2025

VICTOR CRUZ vs. CHANNEL DEVELOPMENT, INC.; PREFERRED PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding an award of further and continuing medical treatment for applicant Victor Cruz at the Centre for Neuro Skills. The defendant argued that the WCJ lacked jurisdiction due to a timely RFA denial. However, the Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding that the defendant failed to present substantial medical evidence to justify the discontinuation of previously authorized treatment. The decision emphasized the principle that once treatment is authorized, the burden shifts to the defendant to prove a change in circumstances to cease treatment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVictor CruzChannel DevelopmentInc.Preferred Professional Insurance CompanyOmaha NationalAdjudication Number ADJ17686288Petition for ReconsiderationFindings Order and AwardWCJ
References
8
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05943 [120 AD3d 744]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2014

Cruz v. Cablevision Systems Corp.

Ricardo Enrique Cruz, an appellant-respondent, sued Cablevision Systems Corporation, JQ II Associates, LLC, and CSC Holdings, Inc. for personal injuries sustained from a 40-foot fall while working on a roof. Cruz alleged common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Appellate Division, Second Department, modified a Supreme Court order. It granted Cruz's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against all defendants. It also granted portions of the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against JQ II Associates, LLC and the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim entirely. However, it denied the dismissal of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Cablevision and CSC. The order was affirmed as modified.

Personal InjuryLabor LawPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related RiskFall from HeightNondelegable DutyIndustrial Code
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01739
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Cruz v. Miller UK Ltd.

This action concerns an accident at LaGuardia Airport where plaintiff Angel Cruz, a construction worker, was struck by an excavator bucket. Cruz initiated a lawsuit against various entities, including Miller UK Ltd., Miller International Ltd., and Miller International Holdings Limited (the Miller defendants). The Supreme Court initially denied the Miller defendants' motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, subsequently reversed this decision, granting the motion to dismiss against Miller UK Ltd. and Miller International Ltd. The court cited a prior related case, Cruz v City of New York, and applied the doctrine of collateral estoppel to determine that there was no personal jurisdiction over these two entities.

Personal jurisdictionCollateral estoppelMotion to dismissConstruction accidentAppellate reviewCorporate liabilityProcedural lawJurisdictional challengeInter-county transferCPLR 3211 (a) (8)
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02981
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2021

Cruz v. National Convention Servs., LLC

Plaintiff David Cruz appealed a Supreme Court order that granted summary judgment to defendant National Convention Services, LLC, dismissing his complaint for injuries sustained at the Jacob K. Javits Convention Center in 2015. Cruz, an employee of NYCCOC, alleged negligence by Vincent Torres and Anthony Scura, general employees of NYCCOC, claiming they were special employees of National, thereby making National liable. The Supreme Court ruled his claims were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy doctrine, finding Torres and Scura were not National's special employees. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that National did not supervise or direct the carpenters' work, and NYCCOC remained responsible for their wages, assignments, and on-site supervision. Therefore, the court found, as a matter of law, that Torres and Scura were not special employees of National Convention Services, LLC.

Summary judgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive remedy doctrineSpecial employee doctrineAppellate reviewPersonal injuryNegligenceJavits CenterEmployer liabilityVicarious liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 28, 2017

Gonzalez-Cruz v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Rafael Gonzalez-Cruz sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of his application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The court vacated the Commissioner's decision, finding that the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) erred at step five of the disability evaluation process. Specifically, the ALJ failed to resolve an apparent conflict between the vocational expert's testimony regarding available jobs and the Dictionary of Occupational Titles' (DOT) language requirements, given Gonzalez-Cruz's illiteracy and inability to communicate in English. The case was remanded for further proceedings to address this inconsistency, while the court affirmed the ALJ's findings on adaptive functioning and the treating physician rule.

Social Security ActSupplemental Security IncomeJudicial ReviewDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgeVocational ExpertDictionary of Occupational TitlesIlliteracyLanguage BarrierMental Impairment
References
82
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02849 [204 AD3d 1348]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Strikeforce Staffing LLC liable for unemployment insurance contributions, classifying Nelson Ruiz Cruz and other workers as employees. Strikeforce, a staffing agency, connected Cruz with a bakery client, who managed his employment and daily tasks. Strikeforce's involvement largely consisted of initial screening and payroll processing based on client approvals. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's determination. The court ruled that there was not substantial evidence to support an employer-employee relationship, as Strikeforce did not exercise sufficient control over the means or results of the workers' services. The decision was remitted back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencyIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' ClassificationRemuneration Liability
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03905 [218 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2023

Cruz v. 451 Lexington Realty, LLC

Plaintiff Johnny Cruz, a laborer, sustained injuries when ductwork fell on him while clearing debris during a building demolition. He initiated an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against 451 Lexington Realty, LLC, and Regent Development Associates, LLC. The defendants initiated a third-party action against City Limits Group, Inc., and City Limits, in turn, sued Flintlock Construction Services, LLC. The Supreme Court denied Cruz's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law claims and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as the ductwork was part of the preexisting structure and not being actively worked on, and Labor Law § 241 (6) inapplicable as the area was not normally exposed to falling objects. Furthermore, Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed because the defendants did not exercise supervision or control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Personal injuryLabor LawSummary judgmentFalling objectConstruction accidentWorkplace safetyDemolitionCommon-law negligenceIndemnificationAppellate review
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 269 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