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. 2015 NY Slip Op 09604
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Maggio v. 24 West 57 PFF, LLC

Plaintiff Joseph Maggio, a drywall installer, was injured after falling from a scaffold staircase at a premises owned by 24 West 57 APF, LLC and leased by Ana Tzarev New York, LLC (ATNY). The scaffold, constructed by Atlantic Hoist & Scaffolding, LLC, had a modified staircase with plywood covering some steps, lacking anti-slip protection and having an irregular rise. Plaintiff attributed his fall to these conditions and the presence of construction debris. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions from defendants 24 West and ATNY, citing outstanding discovery, and later denied renewed motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division found 24 West and ATNY justified in bringing the second motion but denied their request for summary judgment on negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims due to factual questions regarding notice of the dangerous condition. The court also denied plaintiff's untimely cross-motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order, granting ATNY conditional contractual indemnification against R&R, and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Common-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationScaffold AccidentConstruction Site InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate Procedure
References
12
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08399 [133 AD3d 733]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2015

Podobedov v. East Coast Construction Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Aleksey Podobedov, was injured on a construction site when struck by falling concrete while working for subcontractor IBK Enterprises, Inc. He sued the general contractor, East Coast Construction Group, Inc., and owner, Clinton West Partners, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The defendants filed a third-party complaint against IBK for contractual indemnification. All parties moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court, Kings County, denied, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that none of the parties had made a prima facie showing of entitlement to judgment as a matter of law regarding the Labor Law claims or the issue of contractual indemnification, thus requiring a jury determination.

Construction accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)falling objectsummary judgmentcontractual indemnificationAppellate Divisionprima facietriable issue of factsubcontractor liability
References
18
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08000 [189 AD3d 681]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2020

Matias v. West 16th Realty LLC

Jose Matias, an employee of a linen company, sustained injuries on premises owned by West 16th Realty LLC and leased to Grey Dog Chelsea Inc. He was struck on the head by a cellar door while climbing stairs from the restaurant's cellar. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to defendant West 16th Realty LLC. The court determined that as an out-of-possession landlord, West 16th Realty LLC was not liable, as the lease did not mandate cellar door maintenance or repair, and no significant structural or design defect violating a specific statutory safety provision was present. The court also held that West 16th owed no duty under the Administrative Code of the City of New York regarding the sidewalk.

Out-of-possession landlordPremises liabilitySummary judgmentCellar door accidentStructural defectStatutory safety provisionLease obligationsAdministrative Code liabilityAppellate DivisionFirst Department
References
9
Case No. ADJ10219987
Regular
Aug 14, 2017

FERNANDO LOPEZ vs. PISMO COAST VILLAGE, INC., INSURANCE CO OF THE WEST

This case concerns a Petition for Removal filed by Pismo Coast Village, Inc. and Insurance Co. of the West (Defendants) in the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Defendants sought removal, arguing their due process rights were violated because the issue of injury arising out of and in the course of employment (AOE/COE) was not explicitly listed in the Applicant's declaration of readiness to proceed and they were denied complete discovery. The Administrative Law Judge recommended denial of the petition, finding the Defendants were aware AOE/COE was an issue and that their claimed discovery issues were not sufficiently demonstrated. The Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the ALJ's report and denied the Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardInjury AOE/COEDue ProcessDiscoveryRegular PhysicianLabor Code Section 5701Mandatory Settlement ConferenceAmputationRight Foot
References
2
Case No. ADJ7621876
Regular
Jan 05, 2012

DAVID ESPINOZA RODRIGUEZ vs. WEST COAST PAINTING, INC., CNA CLAIMS SERVICES

This case concerns defendant West Coast Painting's petition to remove an order quashing their Notice of Deposition for applicant David Espinoza Rodriguez. The defendant argued the quashing occurred in a non-noticed walk-through and asserted new circumstances, including potential back surgery and treatment outside the MPN. However, the Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's reasoning that the defendant failed to demonstrate good cause for a subsequent deposition and that no irreparable harm would result from denying it. The denial is consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 2025.610, which generally limits parties to one deposition per deponent without good cause shown.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardQuashed DepositionSubsequent DepositionGood CauseSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmWCJ ReportMedical Provider NetworkBack Surgery
References
2
Case No. No. 50; No. 51
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2019

John Kuzmich v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition, LLC, William T. West v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether apartments in buildings receiving tax benefits under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g are subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The Court concluded that they are not, reversing the Appellate Division's decisions in two consolidated cases, John Kuzmich, et al. v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition LLC, and William T. West, et al. v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC, et al. The ruling hinged on the interpretation of RPTL 421-g (6), particularly its "notwithstanding" clause, which the Court found unambiguously subjects such units to full rent control, overriding conflicting RSL provisions for luxury deregulation during the benefit period. The Court rejected arguments from the defendants and the dissenting opinion that legislative intent and the lack of an explicit exemption in the RSL for 421-g buildings indicated the applicability of luxury decontrol. This decision ensures that apartments in buildings receiving 421-g benefits remain subject to rent stabilization protections.

Rent Stabilization LawLuxury DeregulationRPTL 421-g benefitsReal Property Tax LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentLower Manhattan Revitalization PlanRent Regulation Reform ActAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
27
Case No. ADJ16082204
Regular
Jul 28, 2025

MARIA DEL PILAR CAZARES MEZA vs. WEST COAST BERRY FARMS, ALASKA NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY

Applicant Maria Del Pilar Cazares Meza sustained an industrial injury in March 2022. Defendant, West Coast Berry Farms and Alaska National Insurance Company, sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award (F&A) issued by a WCJ, which found 64% permanent disability without apportionment. Defendant argued the primary treating physician's report lacked substantial medical evidence for apportionment. The Appeals Board denied the petition for reconsideration, finding it timely filed but concluding that the defendant failed to meet its burden of proof on apportionment by not providing evidence of prior awards or medical opinions on overlap.

Permanent disabilityApportionmentLabor Code section 4664Substantial medical evidencePrimary treating physicianQualified medical evaluatorPetition for reconsiderationFindings and AwardReport and RecommendationTimeliness
References
6
Case No. ADJ6840627; ADJ8645103
Regular
Mar 17, 2025

Dora Sosa, Gerardo Sosa vs. West Coast Computer Exchanges, Inc.; Everest National Insurance Company

Applicant Dora Sosa and Gerardo Sosa sought workers' compensation for injuries sustained on January 25, 2005, to the head, neck, right shoulder, and psyche while employed by West Coast Computer Exchanges, Inc., insured by Everest National Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) issued Findings of Fact, Awards and Orders on December 19, 2024, finding various points in favor of the applicant, including 65% permanent partial disability and temporary disability indemnity. Defendant petitioned for reconsideration, arguing against the WCJ's findings regarding the disability rating, temporary disability indemnity rate, duration of temporary disability, reimbursement for chiropractic treatment, and EDD's lien. The Appeals Board granted the defendant's petition for reconsideration, deferring a final decision pending further review of the merits and the entire record, citing several issues that require more examination.

ADJ6840627ADJ8645103Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact Awards and OrdersCognitive impairmentPermanent partial disabilityTemporary disability indemnityQME reportingAMA GuidesLabor Code section 4656
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09409 [134 AD3d 998]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2015

North Coast Outfitters, Ltd. v. Darling

North Coast Outfitters, Ltd. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to Charles W. Darling III, Charlies Horse, Inc., and Rivers End, LLC. North Coast sought damages for breach of fiduciary duty and a declaration that Darling, a majority shareholder, was no longer a shareholder due to his failure to contribute to a 2003 "capital call." The Supreme Court had dismissed North Coast's claim as time-barred and declared Darling remained a shareholder. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, finding a triable issue of fact regarding the applicability of equitable estoppel and whether Darling failed to meet the capital call requirements of the shareholders' agreement. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied.

Shareholder disputeBreach of fiduciary dutyCapital callCorporate governanceSummary judgmentStatute of limitations defenseEquitable estoppelAppellate reversalShareholder agreementCorporate shares
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,574 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