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

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Grasso & Grasso

This case involves appeals stemming from a CPLR article 75 proceeding concerning an arbitration award between family members, the Grassos. Initially, the Supreme Court partially vacated the arbitration award, which was later modified by the Appellate Division, reinstating a provision for an arbitration hearing to determine asset valuation. During these proceedings, petitioners successfully moved to hold Joseph F. Grasso Jr. in contempt for non-compliance, leading to a judgment against him. On appeal, the court determined that the Supreme Court should have vacated its judgment upon reconsideration, especially after the Appellate Division's decision to reinstate the arbitration provision. Consequently, the judgments against Grasso Jr. were vacated, and the matter of any final judgment was held in abeyance pending further arbitration to determine the value of Trans-American.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Contempt ProceedingJudgment VacationReconsideration MotionAppellate ReviewEstate LawFamily DisputeArbitration EnforcementOffsetting Awards
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04941 [208 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc.

This personal injury action arises from a construction site accident where plaintiff, an A-Val Architectural Metal III, LLC employee, slipped on pebbles. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to several defendants (Park, CBRE, and Structure Tone Inc.) on claims related to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200, and common-law negligence. The court determined that the Industrial Code regulations cited were inapplicable and that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Additionally, the court ruled on various contractual indemnification claims, finding certain indemnification clauses enforceable while others were not due to ambiguity or lack of negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon Law NegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01376
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

Matter of Gesmer v. Administrative Bd. of the N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys.

This case concerns the appeal of Supreme Court Justices Ellen Gesmer et al. against the Administrative Board of the New York State Unified Court System. The petitioners challenged the Board's denial of their certification for continued judicial service past the mandatory retirement age, a decision attributed to severe budgetary constraints stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Supreme Court initially annulled the Board's determination, citing a lack of individualized review. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, holding that the Board acted within its broad authority in considering the overall needs of the court system, including economic necessity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Board's denial of certification was upheld.

Judicial CertificationMandatory Retirement AgeBudgetary ConstraintsCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactJudicial DiscretionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawAge Discrimination
References
14
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 04773 [129 AD3d 471]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2015

Serowik v. Leardon Boiler Works Inc.

Jozef Serowik, an employee of GDT, sustained severe hand injuries while lowering a heavy tank, which was part of a boiler installation. The incident led to claims under Labor Law sections. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Serowik partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants appealed, and the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court dismissed Serowik's common law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and granted conditional summary judgment on common law indemnification to the defendants. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the finding of liability against defendants under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that Leardon Boiler Works Inc. could be held liable as an agent of the owner.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationAppellate ReviewGravity AccidentScaffolding LawOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityProximate Cause
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2017

Matter of Condon v. Verdile

This case involves an appeal concerning child visitation rights between a father and maternal grandparents. The maternal grandparents and children appealed a Family Court order that granted the father's petition to eliminate the grandparents' visitation and denied the grandparents' petition to establish a visitation schedule. The Appellate Division found that while the deteriorating relationship between the father and grandparents constituted a change in circumstances, the Family Court's determination that resuming visitation was contrary to the children's best interests lacked a sound basis. Evidence showed the children had a close relationship with their grandparents and desired to resume visitation, and a social worker's opinion against visitation was deemed improvidently relied upon due to an incomplete assessment. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's order, denied the father's petition, granted the maternal grandparents' petition, and remitted the matter for the establishment of an appropriate visitation schedule.

Custody modificationChild visitationGrandparent visitation rightsBest interests of the childChange in circumstancesFamily Court order appealAppellate DivisionParent-grandparent antagonismTherapist testimonyDutchess County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

IKEA U.S., Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals

This case concerns a petitioner who was found to have violated Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) for failing to pay weekly wages to manual workers. The initial determination by the Commissioner of Labor was confirmed by the Industrial Board of Appeals. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, had previously confirmed this determination and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed the proceeding, treating it as properly transferred. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner employed manual workers and violated the Labor Law by using a bi-weekly payroll scheme instead of weekly payments. Consequently, the Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court's judgment, confirmed the part of the determination finding the Labor Law violation, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

CPLR Article 78Labor Law ViolationWage PaymentManual WorkersBi-weekly PayrollSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionVacated JudgmentConfirmed DeterminationDismissed Petition
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Luis M.

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether Family Court Act § 330.2 (2) mandates that a presentment agency notify a respondent of its intent to use statements from a nonpublic servant witness in a juvenile delinquency proceeding. The case involved a 15-year-old appellant whose mother found a gun, and who later admitted to a social worker that he bought it for $10. The social worker then contacted the police. The appellant's counsel objected to the social worker's testimony, citing a lack of prior notice. The Court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the notice requirement of Family Court Act § 330.2 (2) does not extend to non-law-enforcement witnesses, thereby upholding the Family Court's original determination.

Juvenile DelinquencyNotice RequirementFamily Court ActCPL 330.2Nonpublic Servant WitnessAdmissibility of StatementsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCriminal Possession of WeaponUnlawful Possession of Weapon
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2004

Two Trees Farm, Inc. v. Planning Board of Town of Southampton

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by petitioners to challenge a determination made by the Planning Board of the Town of Southampton. The Planning Board had conditionally approved the petitioners' application for preliminary subdivision approval after amending their draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), citing concerns about the subdivision's consistency with a voluntary agricultural conservation program. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted the petition, annulled the Planning Board's determinations, remitted the matter, and directed the Board to approve the application. However, the appellate court found the Planning Board's decision to amend the DEIS arbitrary and capricious, affirming the annulment of the determinations and the need for further environmental review based on the original DEIS. Crucially, the appellate court modified the judgment by removing the directive for the Planning Board to approve the subdivision, emphasizing that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the Planning Board on substantive State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) matters.

CPLR Article 78Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardSubdivision ApprovalDraft Environmental Impact StatementFinal Environmental Impact StatementArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionAnnulment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2010

Roberts v. Health & Hospitals Corp.

The New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a lower court's decision that had annulled layoff plans by the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC). The appeals, consolidated from three CPLR article 78 proceedings, were brought by elected officials and labor unions challenging HHC's decision to eliminate certain maintenance positions due to budget constraints. The appellate court ruled that the petitioners lacked standing, finding their claims of imminent health and safety risks to be speculative and not distinct from the general public interest, and outside the Public Health Law's zone of interests. Furthermore, the court determined the matter was nonjusticiable, falling within the executive branch's discretionary management. Even on the merits, the appellate court found HHC's layoff decision to be rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

LayoffsPublic Health LawStandingJusticiabilitySeparation of PowersArbitrary and CapriciousAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewNew York City Health and Hospitals CorporationLabor Unions
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 24,446 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