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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Access 4 All, Inc. v. Trump International Hotel & Tower Condominium

Plaintiffs Access 4 Al, Inc., a non-profit representing disabled persons, and Peter Spalluto, a quadriplegic using a wheelchair, sued Trump International Hotel and Tower Condominium under Title III of the ADA. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction for ADA-mandated alterations, alleging discrimination due to inaccessible facilities during Spalluto's 2004 stay. Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Court found Spalluto demonstrated a plausible intention to return to Trump Tower, establishing his standing. However, the Court dismissed Access 4 Al's claims, finding them identical to Spalluto's and citing prudential limitations on associational standing, while denying the defendant's motion against Spalluto.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAStandingInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAccessibility GuidelinesADAAGQuadriplegiaWheelchair User
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

In re Ruben R.

This case concerns an appeal by the Law Guardian and the Commissioner of Social Services against a Family Court decision that allowed press access to child abuse and neglect proceedings involving the surviving siblings of Elisa Izquierdo. The appellants argued that public dissemination of sensitive details would cause irreparable harm to the children, whose identities had already been widely publicized. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that the potential trauma to the children, supported by psychological evidence, outweighed the press's interest in free access, especially given the prior media disclosures. The court highlighted the importance of safeguarding children's emotional well-being and privacy in such sensitive proceedings.

Child Protective ProceedingsPress AccessCourtroom ClosurePrivacy Rights of ChildrenChildren's Emotional Well-beingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFirst AmendmentJudiciary LawPsychological Harm
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Liberatore v. Liberatore

The court issued an amended decision and order concerning a child custody dispute within a matrimonial action. The father improperly obtained the notes and records of the child's psychiatrist and clinical psychologist using a HIPAA release, bypassing judicial process. The court ruled that such records, protected by patient/psychotherapist privilege (CPLR 4504, 4507), cannot be disclosed without court order, emphasizing the court's role as parens patriae and the child's best interests. It found that a parent has a conflict of interest in waiving privilege on behalf of a minor child, and that HIPAA does not grant unfettered parental access if state law prohibits it or if a professional deems it not in the child's best interest. Consequently, the court denied access to the records for both parties and their counsel, ordering their return to the providers or destruction by the attorney for the child.

Child CustodyMatrimonial LawPatient-Psychotherapist PrivilegeHIPAAJudicial ProcessParens PatriaeConfidentialityMinor's RightsBest Interests of the ChildTherapy Records
References
13
Case No. ADJ7817116, ADJ7875974
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

Karen Swanson vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's claim that the prior award of medical treatment lacked substantial medical evidence. The Board affirmed the necessity of a Nurse Case Manager, a power-assisted wheelchair, podiatrist visits, and a consultation with Dr. Kodama based on stipulations and medical opinion. However, the Board found insufficient evidence for other requested treatments like physical therapy, home modifications, housekeeping, a wheelchair-accessible van, and social worker visits. Jurisdiction was reserved for these deferred issues pending further development of the medical record, including a home modifications consultation.

WCABAmended Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsiderationsubstantial medical evidenceLabor Code section 4604.5Nurse Case Managerpower-assisted wheelchairpodiatristDr. Kodamadysphagia
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roman v. Schweiker

The plaintiff, Magdalena Roman, appealed a denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was previously remanded by the District Court to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a more specific determination regarding whether her physical impairments prevented her from returning to her former work. Subsequently, Roman filed an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Court denied this application, holding that Roman was not a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the EAJA. The Court reasoned that a remand for additional evidence, without a substantive determination on the merits of her disability claim, was not sufficient to establish her as a prevailing party.

Attorney's FeesEqual Access to Justice ActPrevailing PartyRemandSupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsSocial SecurityAppellate PracticeStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. City of New York

Ernest Bush was injured in 1995 while working for Kiska Construction, who rented a manlift from Access Rentals. Bush sued Access Rentals and the City of New York. Access Rentals then commenced a third-party action against Kiska Construction, seeking contractual and common-law indemnification. The court initially denied Access Rentals' motion for summary judgment on contractual indemnification as premature, citing unresolved issues related to General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Access Rentals moved to reargue, arguing that a 'to the fullest extent permitted by law' clause in their agreement with Kiska removed it from the statute's proscriptive ambit. The court granted reargument and, upon reargument, found the saving clause valid, thereby granting Access Rentals conditional summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Kiska Construction.

Contractual IndemnificationGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Summary JudgmentReargument MotionConstruction AccidentManlift MalfunctionNegligence LiabilityPartial IndemnificationIndemnity Saving ClauseSpoliation of Evidence
References
25
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03678 [161 AD3d 1074]
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2018

Matter of Greco v. Robert N. Greco

The mother, Susan Greco, appealed an order from the Family Court, Nassau County, which denied her petition to modify a prior physical access order and directed her to pay supervised physical access costs exceeding $100 per month. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order. The court found that the mother failed to demonstrate a change in circumstances warranting modification of the custody and physical access arrangement. It also determined that a more flexible physical access schedule was in the children's best interests and upheld the Family Court's financial determination regarding supervised physical access costs based on the parties' financial situation.

Child CustodyPhysical AccessFamily LawAppellate ReviewOrder ModificationSupervised VisitationBest Interests of the ChildParental Financial ObligationNassau CountyPro Se Representation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Langford v. Rogers

A paraplegic claimant, declared permanently disabled from a 1972 work accident, sought to modify his challenging New Jersey home for wheelchair accessibility. The Workers’ Compensation Board found these modifications medically necessary under Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 (a) and ordered the carrier, Westchester Fire Insurance Company, to pay for them, removing an initial $30,000 cap. Expert testimonies highlighted the extreme difficulty and high cost ($40,000-$60,000) of the modifications, with one expert deeming the project "an exercise in futility" due to safety and functional deficiencies, and another unable to give a technical feasibility opinion without further studies. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that the proposed modifications were unreasonable as a matter of law because alternative housing options were not explored, the cost could exceed the property's value, and the house would remain unsafe and functionally deficient even after renovations. The matter was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's findings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityParaplegiaHome ModificationWheelchair AccessibilityMedical NecessityStatutory InterpretationReasonableness TestAppellate ReviewCosts
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 374 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