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. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. CA 13-01421
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

MAZELLA, JANICE v. BEALS, M.D., WILLIAM

This case involves a medical malpractice and wrongful death action where William Beals, M.D. (defendant) appealed an amended judgment awarding money damages to Janice Mazella, as administratrix of the estate of Joseph Mazella, deceased (plaintiff). The defendant sought to set aside the jury's verdict, contending that the evidence was legally insufficient to establish a prima facie case of medical malpractice and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the amended judgment, finding a valid line of reasoning supported the jury's conclusion that the defendant deviated from the standard of care, proximately causing the decedent's injuries. The court also rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the admission of certain documents and the absence of a special verdict sheet. A dissenting opinion argued that intervening medical treatment severed the causal connection between the defendant's negligence and the decedent's suicide, and that an evidentiary error regarding a consent agreement with the Office of Professional Medical Conduct deprived the defendant of a fair trial.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseNegligenceJury VerdictPosttrial MotionEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyConsent AgreementOffice of Professional Medical Conduct
References
26
Case No. CA 14-00281
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2014

MAYER, CHERYL D. v. CONRAD, MATTHEW J.

This wrongful death action arose from a construction site accident where the plaintiff's decedent, a Fisher Concrete, Inc. employee, was fatally injured when an unsecured embankment collapsed. Plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law and common-law negligence, while defendants filed a third-party action seeking indemnification from Fisher Concrete, Inc. The Supreme Court dismissed claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing an issue of fact regarding the defendants' actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition. However, the court modified the order to dismiss the third-party complaint seeking common-law indemnification, concluding that the defendants could not be held vicariously liable for the third party's negligence.

Wrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityExcavation WorkErie CountyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wells v. St. Luke's Memorial Hospital Center

The case involves an appeal concerning a wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering claim. The decedent, suffering from kidney failure and associated depression, was sued by the defendant medical provider for unpaid treatment bills. Plaintiff, the decedent's wife, alleged that the defendant's aggressive collection tactics, including threats to seize assets, led to the decedent's suicide. The Supreme Court denied defendant's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed. It found that while the defendant's actions were insensitive, the suicide was not a foreseeable risk, thus severing the chain of proximate causation.

Wrongful deathSummary judgmentProximate causeSuicideMedical debtDialysis complicationsEmotional distressForeseeabilityAppellate reviewNegligence claim
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1983

Weber v. George Cook, Ltd.

Plaintiff Jack Weber, aged 68, filed a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) alleging wrongful termination by the defendant in 1981, after working as a manufacturers’ representative since 1971. He claimed his discharge was due to the defendant's knowing and willful desire to terminate older manufacturers’ representatives and replace them with younger individuals. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction as it did not meet the ADEA's definition of an "employer," which requires twenty or more employees for twenty or more weeks. The Court held an evidentiary hearing, concluding that even with a liberal interpretation, the defendant never employed more than nineteen individuals for the statutory period in 1980 or 1981. Consequently, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawADEASummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionEmployer DefinitionIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSales RepresentativeManufacturers' Representative
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ryan v. Carroll

Susan Ryan, a probationary police officer, was terminated from the City of New Rochelle Police Department after failing a random drug test for THC. She disputed the results, undergoing independent tests that came back negative, and sought reconsideration. Commissioner Carroll upheld the termination after an internal investigation. Ryan then filed a federal lawsuit alleging violations of her constitutional due process rights due to stigmatizing disclosure and wrongful termination, including a prior Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of worker's compensation benefits. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing Ryan's claims for lack of evidence of wrongful disclosure by defendants and the availability of an adequate state post-deprivation procedure for her procedural due process claim. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining Article 78 claim.

Due Process ViolationLiberty Interest DeprivationSummary Judgment GrantedPolice Officer TerminationDrug Test ChallengeProbationary Employment RightsPublic Disclosure of InformationDefamation ClaimSection 1983 ActionArticle 78 Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilner v. Bless

This case concerns a labor dispute where the defendant's local distributed false and misleading information regarding the nature of their disagreement with the plaintiff. Specifically, the information misrepresented that the plaintiff refused to renew a contract to employ only members of the defendant’s local and had made an agreement with another labor organization. The court found that the purpose of disseminating this false information was to injure the plaintiff’s business and coerce him into employing only members of the defendant’s local. Consequently, the plaintiff was granted an injunction preventing the defendant from falsely proclaiming a lockout of union labor. The decision emphasized that equity can provide relief and enjoin wrongful, continuous acts causing damage, even if related to publication, where proof of damage might be difficult. The judgment affirming the injunction was upheld.

Labor DisputeInjunctionFalse InformationMisleading InformationBusiness InjuryCoercionUnion ContractEquity ReliefLibelLockout
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Rista

In this wrongful death action, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant, while intoxicated, negligently caused the death of John Thornton. Both individuals were performing a moving job for Moving Man, Inc. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that workers' compensation benefits provided the exclusive remedy, as both were supposedly under the 'same employ.' However, the court found that material issues of fact exist regarding Thornton's employment status (employee versus independent contractor) with Moving Man, Inc. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was denied. The court also noted that Workers' Compensation Board determinations regarding Thornton were not binding on the plaintiff due to lack of proper notice to the estate.

wrongful deathworkers' compensationsummary judgmentindependent contractoremployer-employee relationshipintoxicationnegligenceexclusive remedymaterial issues of factappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cusumano v. Schlessinger

The plaintiff, an operator employed by Rodin, was discharged on October 2, 1914, after agents of the International Garment Association informed Rodin that the plaintiff was not a union member, violating an agreement between Rodin's association and the defendant. The plaintiff, claiming wrongful discharge and subsequent inability to find work, was awarded $500 in the lower court. However, the defendant appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the judgment, ruling that Rodin had the right to discharge an employee hired for an indefinite term with or without cause. The court also determined that the defendant's truthful statements did not constitute an actionable offense, as the responsibility for discharge rested solely with the employer. Furthermore, no evidence suggested the defendant prevented the plaintiff from seeking other employment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Wrongful dischargeLabor disputeUnion membershipEmployer-employee relationsTrade associationsContractual agreementsAppellate reviewDismissal with costsUnemploymentRight to discharge
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 15,679 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