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. 2015 NY Slip Op 08125 [133 AD3d 470]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

Acosta v. Gouverneur Court Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff, Jesus Acosta, a maintenance worker, alleged he fell in a boiler room of a building owned by Gouverneur Court Limited Partnership when his pants caught on a brace or bracket. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence claim. The court found that the condition was not defective, but rather open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that the condition was plainly observable and did not constitute a trap or snare.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOpen and ObviousInherently DangerousAppellate ReviewMaintenance WorkerBoiler RoomFall AccidentCommon-Law
References
3
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02654
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2016

Matter of Dayannie I. M. (Roger I. M.)

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found Roger I.M. abused and neglected his daughter, Eyllen I.M., and derivatively abused his other children: Dayannie I.M., Hillary I.M., Keyri I.M., and Jackzenny I.M. The court found that the Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented sufficient evidence, including Eyllen's consistent out-of-court statements, expert testimony, and Roger I.M.'s written confession of sexual abuse. The Appellate Division upheld the Family Court's credibility assessment, rejecting the appellant's and the children's mother's disputes. The court also affirmed the derivative abuse findings for the other children, noting that a child's recantation does not necessarily invalidate prior abuse allegations, especially when pressured or if there is expert testimony indicating a false recantation.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewSexual AbuseCredibilityRecantationExpert TestimonyParental RightsSuffolk County Family Court
References
26
Case No. Index No. 500294/2018 Appeal No. 16497-16498-16499 Case No. 2022-00247, 2022-00958, 2022-01285, 2022-02741
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2023

Matter of Edgar V.L.

Alison L. initiated proceedings to appoint an Article 81 guardian for her incapacitated brother, Edgar V.L., alleging financial exploitation by Rachida Naciri, who later married Edgar and entered into a prenuptial agreement. Judy S. Mock was appointed temporary guardian and Gary Elias as counsel. Concerns arose when Mock and Elias failed to investigate the marriage and financial transactions. A special guardian, Lissett C. Ferreira, was subsequently appointed to investigate these matters. The Supreme Court removed Mock and discharged Elias due to conflicts of interest and dereliction of fiduciary duties, appointing successor guardian and counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed these orders, ruling that Alison L. had standing and that the court's actions regarding the appointments and removals were a proper exercise of discretion. The court also dismissed an appeal as moot.

Incapacitated personGuardianshipFinancial exploitationPrenuptial agreementFiduciary dutiesAttorney misconductSpecial guardianArticle 81Due processAppellate review
References
14
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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sciaruto v. Scovell

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Cortland County, which denied the appellants' motion for summary judgment. The respondent sustained personal injuries when struck by a motor vehicle driven by a co-worker, appellant Edith M. Scovell, while walking to work. The accident occurred on a public sidewalk near the employer's parking lot, 10 to 15 minutes before the scheduled work time. Appellants argued that the respondent's exclusive remedy was under Workmen's Compensation Law, claiming she was in the course of employment. However, Special Term and the appellate court agreed that the key test was whether the employer exercised 'dominion and control' over the accident site, which presented a factual issue not resolvable by summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentWorkmen's CompensationCourse of EmploymentDominion and ControlPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentPremises LiabilityFactual IssueAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2015

Malone v. Court West Developers, Inc.

Plaintiff Leslie Malone alleged personal injuries (asthma and permanent allergies) due to mold contamination while working at a bank branch owned by defendant Court West Developers, Inc. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint as untimely under the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff's alleged exposure to the toxic substance did not occur within three years of commencing the action. The court also concluded that the plaintiff's initial symptoms were too intermittent and inconsequential to trigger the statute of limitations.

Statute of LimitationsToxic TortMold ExposurePersonal InjuryAsthmaAllergic ReactionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureDiscovery RuleIntermittent Symptoms
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 20,989 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