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. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 21232
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2021

Phillips v. Max Finkelstein, Inc.

Plaintiff Jesse Phillips, a manual employee of Max Finkelstein, Inc., was paid biweekly, violating Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) (i) which mandates weekly payment for manual workers. Phillips sued over late payments and improper wage statements. The Suffolk County Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing both causes of action. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed, citing the precedent in Vega v CM & Assoc. Constr. Mgt., LLC that a private right of action exists under Labor Law § 198 (1-a) for violations of wage frequency requirements. Thus, the court reinstated Phillips' first cause of action concerning late payments but upheld the dismissal of the second cause of action regarding wage statements, as Phillips did receive statements with every payment. The final order modified the lower court's decision, denying the dismissal of the first cause of action.

wage payment frequencymanual employeeLabor Law violationsliquidated damagesprivate right of actionsummary judgmentstare decisisAppellate Division precedentwage statementsemployment law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Ramadhan v. Morgans Hotel Group Management, LLC

The Board initially concluded that the claimant was not totally disabled despite a 100% schedule loss of use of both eyes, arguing he retained some vision. The claimant contended that he met the criteria for 'loss of both eyes' for total disability, referencing a previous Board decision (Max W. Fritzsch) where a claimant with some vision was deemed permanently totally disabled. The court concurred with the claimant, asserting that the Board was obligated to either adhere to its established precedent or provide a rationale for deviating from it. Therefore, the decision is reversed and the matter is remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings, with instructions to either follow the Fritzsch precedent or provide an appropriate explanation for any departure.

Workers' CompensationTotal DisabilitySchedule Loss of UseVision ImpairmentLegal PrecedentStare DecisisRemittalBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewConsistency in Adjudication
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffman v. CIBA VISION CORP.

Plaintiff James H. Hoffman sued his employer, CIBA Vision Corporation, alleging age discrimination under the ADEA and NYSHRL, and a state law breach of contract claim. Hoffman, a territory manager for CIBA from 1989 until his termination on January 8, 2004, at age 46, claimed his dismissal was discriminatory. CIBA moved for summary judgment, citing Hoffman's chronically poor administrative performance and sales deficiencies. The court found that Hoffman failed to demonstrate that CIBA's legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for his dismissal were pretextual. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for CIBA on the age discrimination claims and dismissed the state law breach of contract claim without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationADEANYSHRLSummary JudgmentEmployment TerminationBreach of ContractPretextDiscriminatory IntentPerformance ReviewTerritory Manager
References
26
Case No. ADJ9358001 ADJ7395128
Regular
Feb 22, 2019

CATALINA HERNANDEZ vs. VISION MAX, INC., LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY/SAFECO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the dismissal of its lien claim. The administrative law judge found the lien was filed more than three years after the last date of service and that no lien filing fee was paid. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning, noting the lien claimant failed to meet its burden to show the statute of limitations was tolled. Therefore, the lien claim was properly dismissed.

Lien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Ordersstatute of limitationstollinglast date of servicelien filing feeApplication for Adjudication of ClaimLabor Code section 5405WCJ
References
1
Case No. Docket # 45
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Empire Vision Centers, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernestine Ward filed suit against Empire Vision Centers, Inc., alleging discrimination based on race, color, and age, and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. The United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson addressed several pretrial motions in the consolidated case. Ward's motion to amend the complaint was denied as moot, and her motions to unseal discovery documents were denied. While some aspects of her motions to compel discovery were granted, specifically regarding patient charts and appointment schedules, other discovery requests, including interrogatories to non-parties and subpoenas, were denied. Finally, Ward's request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice, and her motion to appear by telephone was granted in part.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAge Discrimination in Employment ActNew York Human Rights LawPretrial DiscoveryMotion to Amend ComplaintMotion to Compel DiscoveryMotion to Unseal DocumentsAppointment of CounselMagistrate Judge Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Liebla v. Gro Max, LLC

Claimant, a truck driver, sustained a compensable back injury in 1993 in Connecticut, leading to surgeries and a lump-sum settlement. In 2007, while working for Gro Max, LLC, he suffered another work-related back injury. The employer sought to equally apportion liability between the 1993 and 2007 injuries, a determination upheld by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that apportionment was unsupported by substantial evidence and inapplicable as he worked without restriction prior to the 2007 injury. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding that substantial medical evidence, including opinions from independent medical examiners, supported the equal apportionment of the disability between the two injuries, considering the pre-existing spinal condition.

ApportionmentPrior InjurySubsequent InjuryBack InjuryLump-sum settlementMedical EvidenceSpinal StenosisDegenerative Disc DiseaseAggravation of ConditionSubstantial Evidence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. v. Morganstern

Innoviant Pharmacy, Inc. sued its former sales executive, Max Morganstern, for unfair competition and breach of a non-compete agreement after he joined a competitor, Summit Pharmacy, Inc., and solicited Innoviant's customer referral sources. Innoviant sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Morganstern from contacting 114 key New York referral sources. The court found Innoviant unlikely to succeed on its breach of contract claim because the employment agreement was deemed unenforceable due to a later signed document. However, the court found Innoviant likely to succeed on its unfair competition claim, as Morganstern misappropriated a list of potential referral sources and business cards. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, restraining Morganstern from contacting the specified referral sources until February 24, 2006, conditioned on Innoviant posting a $100,000 security bond.

Preliminary InjunctionUnfair CompetitionBreach of ContractNon-compete ClauseTrade SecretsCustomer ListsConfidential InformationEmployment AgreementSales ExecutiveReferral Sources
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Almonte v. Averna Vision & Robotics, Inc.

Plaintiff Cristono Almonte sued Defendant Averna Vision & Robotics, Inc. for personal injuries sustained while operating an 'Inspection System' designed by the Defendant, alleging negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranties. Defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims and to exclude Plaintiff's expert testimony, while Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for negligent failure to warn. The Court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment in part, specifically for the breach of implied warranty claim and the manufacturing defect aspects of the negligence and strict products liability claims, but denied it otherwise. The Court also partially granted Defendant's motion to exclude Plaintiff's expert testimony, ruling against the expert's reliance on OSHA regulations, ASME emergency-stop standards, and an outdated CEMA document. Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was entirely denied.

Products LiabilityPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentExpert Testimony AdmissibilityOSHA RegulationsASME StandardsDesign DefectFailure to WarnBreach of Implied WarrantyBreach of Express Warranty
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2000

Seward Park Housing Corp. v. Cohen

The dissenting opinion by Justice Friedman argues against the majority's decision to reverse the Appellate Term's ruling, which would have allowed a co-op to enforce its no-pet clause against shareholder Max Cohen. Friedman contends that the majority's overly literal interpretation of Administrative Code § 27-2009.1 (b) disregards legislative intent, which aimed to protect tenants from retaliatory evictions by landlords, not to undermine co-op rules. The dissent asserts that the Code should not apply to cooperatives, and even if it did, the co-op's timely service of a notice to cure and commencement of a summary proceeding should preclude a waiver. Furthermore, Friedman challenges the broad definition of "agent" used by the majority, arguing that security guards and maintenance workers are not agents whose knowledge should trigger the statutory waiver period. The dissent criticizes the majority for rendering the "knowledge" requirement of the statute superfluous and creating practical problems for landlords.

Cooperative LawPet RestrictionLease EnforcementStatutory InterpretationLandlord-Tenant LawWaiver DoctrineLegislative HistoryAppellate ReviewNo-Pet ClauseEviction Proceedings
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 87 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