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
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1998

Nos v. Greenpoint Manufacturing & Design Center Local Development Corp.

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center Local Development Corporation, the owner and lessor of a property, appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification against S & G Woodworking, Inc. A worker employed by S & G was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder on Greenpoint's premises. The appellate court found no evidence that Greenpoint supervised or controlled the plaintiff's work, thus establishing its right to indemnification from S & G. The order was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and Greenpoint was deemed entitled to recover legal expenses incurred in defending the plaintiff's claims.

Personal InjuryCommon-law indemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker InjuryPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityLessor LiabilityThird-party actionLegal Expenses
References
4
Case No. ADJ2968351 (SFO 0503112)
Regular
Mar 01, 2012

Marina Cribas vs. Whitney Young Child Development Center, State Compensation Insurance Fund

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Marina Cribas's petition for reconsideration as untimely. The WCJ's decision was served by mail on December 5, 2011, but Cribas did not file her petition until January 11, 2012, exceeding the 25-day deadline. As the time limit for filing a petition for reconsideration is jurisdictional, the WCAB lacked authority to consider the merits of the petition. Even if timely, the WCAB would have denied the petition based on the WCJ's reasoning.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarina CribasWhitney Young Child Development CenterState Compensation Insurance FundADJ2968351SFO 0503112Order Denying ReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactOrder and Opinion on Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Norton

Lawrence D. Young (plaintiff) sued Debra J. Norton and Raymond A. Young (defendants) after falling from a ladder while installing gutters on a three-family residence. Plaintiff, who was paid in cash and services, used an unsecured ladder which 'kicked out,' causing him to fall 18 feet and sustain injuries. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), while defendants cross-moved to dismiss, arguing they were not 'owners' under the statute. The court determined both defendants, as fee owner (Norton) and life tenant (Young), qualified as 'owners' under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to their interest and control over the property. The court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, finding defendants absolutely liable as the unsecured ladder failed, and denied defendants' cross-motions, concluding the absence of an eyewitness did not preclude summary judgment.

Ladder FallConstruction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Owner LiabilityLife EstateFee SimpleSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyAbsolute LiabilityUnsecured Ladder
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bailey v. Irish Development Corp.

Plaintiff William R. Bailey, Sr., a general laborer, was injured during the removal of large concrete footings from a dump truck when the excavator operator prematurely pulled a chain, causing the concrete to shift and the dump body to rapidly rise, resulting in the plaintiff's fall. He and his wife, derivatively, sued various contractors and owners, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and dismissed several other claims. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissals related to Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), concluding that the accident did not involve an elevation-related hazard as defined by the statute and that the industrial code provision was misapplied. However, the court reversed the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against the Mark defendants, finding that questions of fact existed regarding their potential supervision or notice of the unsafe working conditions.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentElevation HazardProximate CauseOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Winn v. Hudson Valley Equine Center

A claimant, an equine veterinarian, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding an occupational disease affecting his right shoulder and wrist. The claimant developed these conditions from strenuous work at Hudson Valley Equine Center between 1982 and 1988, leading to surgery and a workers' compensation claim in 1988. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found an occupational disease with a disability date of March 23, 1988, ruling the claim timely and estopping the carrier, Insurance Company of North America/CIGNA, from denying coverage. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's findings. The employer and carrier appealed, contending the finding of an occupational disease lacked support and that the claim was time-barred. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence connecting the conditions to the claimant's occupation and upholding the Board's determination of the date of disablement and the carrier's estoppel.

Occupational DiseaseEquine VeterinarianShoulder InjuryWrist InjuryCarpal Tunnel SyndromeWorkers' Compensation LawDate of DisablementTimeliness of ClaimEstoppelInsurance Coverage
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,714 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