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. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision

Testerman v. Zielinski

The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic LawAutomobile AccidentExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 1978

Sanders v. Southfield Heights, Inc.

In an action to recover damages for wrongful death, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County. The order granted defendant Southfield Heights, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it. The complaint alleged causes of action for negligence and wrongful death. The court found that no reasonable view of the allegations supported a claim of intentional tort. Sections 10 and 11 of the Workers' Compensation Law served as an absolute bar to the action against the respondent. Consequently, the dismissal was deemed proper, and the order was affirmed insofar as appealed from.

Wrongful DeathNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawIntentional TortDismissalAppeal AffirmedAbsolute Bar
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hirsch v. Mastroianni

In a wrongful death action, the plaintiff, Hirsch's widow, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, that granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment. The lower court dismissed the complaint, ruling the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (subd 6), and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to dismiss this affirmative defense. The factual background involved co-employees Hirsch and Di Stefano, where Di Stefano shot Hirsch to death and then committed suicide. The appellate court reversed the order, finding that Di Stefano was not acting within the scope of his employment, thus making the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision inapplicable. Citing Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept., the court clarified that the law does not bar tort actions against co-employees for acts outside the scope of employment or for intentional torts, and an insane person is liable for their torts.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee LiabilityScope of EmploymentIntentional TortNegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewExclusive RemedyCPLR 3211
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2013

Mohan v. Atlantic Court, LLC

Edward Mohan sustained injuries at a construction site and later died. His representatives, the plaintiffs, filed an action for personal injuries and wrongful death against the site owner, Atlantic Court, LLC, and the general contractors, Kit Construction, LLC, and Kit Construction Co., Inc. The general contractors then brought a third-party action against Mohan's employer, Eagle One Roofing Contractors, Inc., the subcontractor. The Supreme Court's order granted summary judgment dismissing the wrongful death cause of action and parts of the indemnification claims. On appeal, the order was modified: summary judgment on the wrongful death claim was denied due to factual disputes regarding the causation of Mohan's death, and summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Eagle One was denied due to a factual issue on whether Mohan suffered a grave injury. However, the contractual indemnification claims against Eagle One by Kit Construction Co., Inc. and Atlantic Court, LLC, were affirmed.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationConstruction AccidentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorAppellate ReviewCausation (Medical)
References
11
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

Silvas v. Bridgeview Investors, LLC

This case involves an appeal by plaintiffs in a wrongful death action. The decedent fell to his death from an unguarded sixth-floor balcony at a condominium construction site. Plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) against the building owners and general contractor. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the claims, and upon reargument, adhered to dismissing the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and fully dismissed the § 241(6) claim. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendants failed to provide admissible evidence that the decedent's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident, or that the Industrial Code provision was inapplicable. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment on both Labor Law claims were denied, effectively reinstating the plaintiffs' claims.

Wrongful DeathLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseFall AccidentBalcony SafetyIndustrial CodeBuilding Owners
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1985

Kollmer v. Slater Electric, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed her causes of action alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) in an action for wrongful death. The decedent, an employee of Delta Wells Inc., was fatally injured by a backhoe on land owned by the defendant, Slater Electric, Inc. The trial court had dismissed the Labor Law claim and ruled an OSHA violation inadmissible. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, holding that Labor Law § 241 (6) imposes a nondelegable duty on owners, irrespective of their control over the worksite, and that the plaintiff's offer of proof established a prima facie case. The court reinstated the plaintiff's causes of action and granted a new trial, but affirmed that the specific OSHA settlement was inadmissible as an admission.

Wrongful DeathLabor Law241(6)Nondelegable DutyConstruction AccidentBackhoe IncidentOSHA RegulationsPrima Facie CaseEvidence AdmissibilityNew Trial Granted
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1994

Speroni v. Mid-Island Hospital

In a medical malpractice and wrongful death action, the defendants appealed an order regarding their motion to amend their answer to assert a Workers' Compensation Law defense and for summary judgment, and the plaintiff's cross-motion to strike their Statute of Limitations defenses. The Supreme Court properly struck the Statute of Limitations defenses, as the service was timely and jurisdiction was properly obtained. However, the Supreme Court erred in denying the defendants' motion to amend their answer to include the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. The appellate court modified the order, granting the branch of the motion to amend the answer and remitting the matter for further proceedings, specifically staying the summary judgment disposition pending a Workers' Compensation Board determination.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathWorkers' Compensation LawStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAmendment of AnswerAppellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County Supreme Court
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kielar v. Metropolitan Museum of Art

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury and wrongful death action stemming from a worker's fatal fall through a skylight. The plaintiff was initially granted summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against the building owner (City) and lessee (Museum). The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, denying the employer's motion to dismiss indemnification claims from the City and Museum, pending a separate declaratory judgment action regarding insurance coverage. The court also granted the City and Museum summary judgment on their contractual and common-law indemnification claims against the employer, contingent on the exhaustion of primary and excess insurance policies. Appeals from a later order were dismissed as nonappealable or academic.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationAdditional InsuredAntisubrogation Rule
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vargas v. Crown Container Co.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering action. The decedent, a garbage truck helper, sustained fatal injuries. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified. Summary judgment was granted to Crown Container Co., Inc., Crown Container Transfer Station Co., Inc., and Ashim Ali, based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions. Additionally, summary judgment was granted dismissing the negligent spoliation of evidence claim against Crown Container Waste Services Corp., as New York does not recognize such a cause of action. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied for remaining causes of action against Crown Container Waste Services Corp., due to triable issues of fact regarding its interrelationship with the employer and alleged faulty repair.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsNegligent Spoliation of EvidenceAlter EgoProximate CauseAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 9,035 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