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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Case No. ADJ8739181
Regular
Sep 19, 2018

JOHN JOAQUIN (deceased), JENNIFER JOAQUIN, individually and as Guardian Ad Litem for ANNAMARIE JOAQUIN, MAKAHLAH LYNN JOAQUIN, IZABEL TRINITY JOAQUIN vs. SAN DIEGO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, permissibly self-insured, administered by YORK

This case concerns a deceased worker's family seeking increased compensation due to alleged serious and willful misconduct by the employer, San Diego Unified School District. The WCAB affirmed the judge's finding that the employer did not engage in serious and willful misconduct, as the employer's actions were deemed a mistake in judgment rather than intentional disregard of danger. The Board also upheld the exclusion of evidence regarding a subsequent remedial measure taken by the employer. A dissenting opinion argued that the employer's decision to send the employee to a dangerous roadside repair location demonstrated reckless disregard for safety, warranting a finding of serious and willful misconduct.

Serious and willful misconductLabor Code section 4553Mercer-Fraser Co.subsequent remedial measureEvidence Code section 1151roadside repairdangerous conditionreckless disregardJohns-Manville Sales Corp.Hawaiian Pineapple Co.
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2013

In Re the Estate of Cameron

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Tioga County concerning the probate of William G. Cameron's will. The decedent, while hospitalized, executed a will leaving his estate to his wife, the petitioner. One of his sons, the respondent, filed objections, alleging the will was not duly executed, decedent lacked testamentary capacity, and the will was procured by fraud and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted summary judgment to the petitioner, dismissing the objections and admitting the will to probate. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the petitioner established a prima facie case for probate and the respondent failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding due execution, testamentary capacity, fraud, or undue influence.

Will ProbateTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceFraudSummary JudgmentAppealSurrogate's CourtAttesting WitnessesDue ExecutionDecedent's Estate
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Hayes

This case concerns an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County's dismissal of a petitioner's application to hold the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, who had accumulated significant arrears and made no payments since September 1999, claimed disability due to an automobile accident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his inability to pay. The Hearing Examiner erred by finding no willful violation and by sua sponte reducing the respondent's child support obligation without a cross-petition or adequate proof of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the petitioner's application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that a willful violation was warranted and the downward modification was improper.

Child SupportWillful ViolationSupport ArrearsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceDownward ModificationFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofNonpayment
References
4
Case No. ADJ3891195 (LBO 0394271)
Regular
Jul 26, 2010

Carlos Melara vs. GARDA USA, aka GARDA CL WEST, INC.; ESIS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded a previous award. The Board found that while the applicant sustained an industrial injury, it did not result from the employer's serious and willful misconduct. The Board determined that the employer's actions, including conducting safety meetings and having policies against firearm misuse, did not demonstrate the "positive and active disregard of the consequences" required for serious and willful misconduct. Therefore, the 50% increase in benefits for serious and willful misconduct was overturned.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code Section 4553Industrial InjuryBilateral Lower ExtremitiesPsycheGarda USAESISCoin CounterArmored Trucks
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. ADJ1323538 (SAC 0305102)
Regular
Jul 20, 2010

BRUCE LOCKWOOD vs. C.C. MEYERS, INC., C.C. MEYERS, AN INDIVIDUAL

This case involves an applicant seeking increased compensation due to serious and willful misconduct by his employer, C.C. Meyers, Inc. The applicant sustained significant injuries when an excavator ran over his foot, leading to its amputation. The Appeals Board overturned the Workers' Compensation Judge's denial, finding that the employer's failure to provide a spotter for the excavator constituted serious and willful misconduct. This failure to provide a spotter, coupled with the employer's knowledge of the risks and intentional disregard for safety, was determined to be a proximate cause of the applicant's injury. As a result, the applicant's compensation will be increased by one-half.

Serious and Willful MisconductEmployer LiabilityIndustrial InjuryProximate CauseSafe Place of EmploymentFailure to Provide SpotterExcavator SafetyCalOSHA Safety Order 1592ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. ADJ1421850 (FRE0216376)
Regular
Aug 17, 2009

BILL CUSTER vs. SARA LEE BAKERY GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a finding of serious and willful misconduct by the employer, Sara Lee Bakery Group. The applicant sustained a knee and groin injury due to a broken bread tray, and the initial finding of misconduct was based on testimony about past practices. However, the Board found no evidence that the employer's executive or managing officers knew serious injury was probable or acted with reckless disregard for consequences. Consequently, the prior award finding serious and willful misconduct was rescinded, and a new decision was issued stating the injury was not caused by the employer's serious and willful misconduct.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSerious and Willful MisconductLabor Code § 4553Findings and AwardReconsiderationRescindedApplicantDefendantRoute SalesmanIndustrial Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wills v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jaime Wills initiated a putative class action against RadioShack Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law regarding overtime pay calculation. Wills contended that RadioShack's practice of paying performance-based bonuses to its store managers rendered its use of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) method unlawful, requiring instead a higher 'time-and-a-half' rate. RadioShack moved to dismiss, asserting its compliance with NYLL, which aligns with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court determined that performance-based bonuses were compatible with the FWW method and that a 2011 DOL Final Ruling did not alter this interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Fluctuating WorkweekOvertime PayPerformance BonusesNew York Labor LawFair Labor Standards ActClass ActionMotion to DismissCollateral EstoppelWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 1,395 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