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. CA 14-01767
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2015

WOLFE, PHILLIP v. WAYNE-DALTON CORPORATION

Phillip Wolfe, a warehouse manager, sustained injuries after falling from a safety ladder while attempting to repair an overhead receiving door cable. He initiated an action against the warehouse owners, including Joanne Leska and Robert Tarson, Jr., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially granted Wolfe partial summary judgment on liability, deeming the activity a protected "repair." On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, affirming that Wolfe was engaged in a protected activity but finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the injury was due to an elevation-related risk under the statute. The appellate court also affirmed the dismissal of the defendants' immunity defense under Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) and upheld the denial of their motion for leave to renew.

Ladder fallWarehouse injuryLabor Law § 240 (1) claimWorkers' Compensation immunitySummary judgmentAppellate reviewElevation-related riskOverhead door repairTriable issue of factNew York Appellate Division
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfe v. KLR Mechanical, Inc.

Plaintiff Malcolm Wolfe, a millwright employed by DLX Inc., was injured when he slipped on a threaded rod while working at defendant Irving Tissue, Inc.'s paper mill. Wolfe and his wife filed an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) against Irving Tissue, Inc., Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. (general contractor), and KLR Mechanical, Inc. (subcontractor). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims against all defendants and the other claims against Northeast Riggers & Erectors, Inc. and KLR Mechanical, Inc. However, the court reversed the summary judgment granted to Irving Tissue, Inc. concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, finding that Irving retained control of the stairway and failed to establish a lack of constructive notice of the dangerous condition. The case was remitted for further proceedings against Irving Tissue, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentRoutine MaintenanceIndustrial CodeAppellate DivisionSpecial EmployeeConstructive NoticeDangerous Condition
References
21
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00246 [157 AD3d 528]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2018

Casalini v. Alexander Wolf & Son

Plaintiff Michael Casalini was allegedly injured at work on a renovation site when he slipped and fell on a pile of debris. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' in limine motion and dismissed the complaint, citing a prior order that found no negligence by defendant Alexander Wolf & Son regarding the debris. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the motion in limine was effectively an untimely motion for summary judgment under CPLR 3212(a) and also premature under CPLR 4401 as plaintiffs were denied an evidentiary hearing. Consequently, the appellate court denied the motion, and the complaint was reinstated in its entirety.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSlip and FallPremises LiabilityLabor LawSummary JudgmentMotion in LimineAppellate ProcedureIndemnificationThird-Party Claim
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06263 [175 AD3d 927]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2019

Wolf v. Ledcor Constr. Inc.

This case concerns a construction worker, Christopher Wolf, who sustained injuries when a scaffold he was using tipped over due to a wheel falling into an improperly covered floor drain. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), which the Supreme Court granted, while denying defendants' cross-motions to dismiss claims under Labor Law § 240 (1), Labor Law § 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the accident involved an elevation-related risk and that defendants failed to establish a lack of supervisory control or notice of the dangerous condition. The Court rejected defendants' 'sole proximate cause' defense, citing a statutory violation. However, the Appellate Division modified the order to deny contractual indemnification for Cameron Group, LLC by Costco Wholesale Corp., finding no contractual basis for such indemnification.

Construction AccidentScaffold AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 200Common-Law NegligenceElevation-Related RiskProximate CauseSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSupervisory Control
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2011

Colortone Camera, Inc. v. New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board

Colortone Camera, Inc. challenged the reclassification of its employees from Workers' Compensation Classification Code 8017 to 8018, which resulted in significantly increased insurance rates. The company's appeal to the Superintendent of Insurance, affirming the New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board's determination, was reviewed in this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the Superintendent's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence that Colortone's business was primarily wholesale. Additionally, Colortone sought a declaratory judgment that portions of the Workers Compensation & Employers Liability Insurance Manual were unconstitutional for vagueness. This aspect of the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for severance and further proceedings, as it was not properly before the appellate court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance RatesBusiness ReclassificationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. 524606
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Matter of Wolfe v. Ames Dept. Store, Inc.

Claimant Geraldine Wolfe suffered a work-related accident in April 2002, leading to established injuries to her right shoulder, neck, and upper back. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found her permanently totally disabled. However, the Workers' Compensation Board, after an impartial medical evaluation by physiatrist Paul Salerno, determined it was premature to classify her with a permanent disability. Instead, the Board found a temporary marked partial disability and directed further medical testing. The Board also concluded that claimant was not attached to the labor market as of December 16, 2013, as her employment search efforts had ceased. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence regarding both the disability classification and labor market attachment.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Total DisabilityTemporary Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentImpartial Medical SpecialistMedical Impairment GuidelinesAppellate ReviewCervical Spine PainDegenerative ChangesSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. STK 0204017
Regular
Feb 25, 2008

CHRISTINE BROOME vs. MEADOWS CAMERA/WOLF CAMERA, INC., SENTRY INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed Christine Broome's petition for reconsideration because she withdrew it through stipulations. The Board will return the remaining stipulations to the Workers' Compensation Judge for further action. This order officially dismisses the petition filed after the December 19, 2007 decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWCABStipulationsWCJApplicantDefendantSentry InsuranceMeadows Camera
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Wolf

This case examines the legal requirements for establishing economic harm in first-degree commercial bribing under New York law. The defendant, an attorney, was accused of paying kickbacks to insurance adjusters at Aetna Life and Casualty Company and Commercial Union Insurance Company to expedite client settlements. The central issue was whether the payment of a kickback alone constitutes sufficient proof of economic harm exceeding $250 to the employer, as mandated by the 1983 felony commercial bribery statute. The Court, drawing parallels with federal mail fraud cases, ruled that concrete economic loss, not merely the kickback itself, must be demonstrated. Consequently, the conviction related to Commercial Union was reduced to a misdemeanor due to inadequate proof that the company would have secured a better settlement in the absence of the bribery. However, the conviction concerning Aetna was upheld, as evidence indicated that Aetna was deprived of the opportunity for a reduced settlement due to the corrupt arrangement. Additionally, the Court affirmed the first-degree scheme to defraud conviction and addressed procedural challenges concerning co-conspirator statements and Rosario rule violations.

Commercial BriberyEconomic HarmKickbacksInsurance FraudFelony CrimeStatutory InterpretationSufficiency of EvidenceMail Fraud AnalogyConspiracyHearsay Exception
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 1985

Wolf v. Wolf

In two support proceedings, the petitioner mother appealed two orders. The first order, entered September 7, 1984, denied her petition for an upward modification of child support. The second order, entered May 3, 1985, denied her full reimbursement for certain child counseling expenses. The Family Court's decisions were affirmed on appeal. The court properly denied a general increase in the father's child support obligation and directed the mother to seek payment for counseling expenses through the father's medical insurance coverage.

child supportupward modificationcounseling expensesparental obligationsFamily Lawappellate reviewOrange County
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 105 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