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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
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. 2019 NY Slip Op 06477 [175 AD3d 1253]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2019

Graziano v. Source Bldrs. & Consultants, LLC

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury case where Guy Graziano was injured on a construction site. The court modified an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, concerning claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Specifically, the appellate court reversed the grant of summary judgment dismissing claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence against the defendants, finding triable issues of fact regarding dangerous conditions and the manner of work. However, it affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims due to the inapplicability of cited Industrial Code provisions. The court also adjusted rulings on contractual indemnification claims between the defendants.

Construction AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationScaffold LawElevation-Related RiskUnsafe Workplace
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04235 [185 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale v. City of New York

This case concerns a challenge to the City of New York's rezoning plan for the Inwood neighborhood of Manhattan. Petitioners, including Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale, sought to annul the City Council's resolutions, arguing that the environmental reviews under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) were inadequate. The Supreme Court initially sided with the petitioners, granting their request to annul the rezoning plan. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the City's environmental review process was lawful and that it took the requisite 'hard look' at potential environmental impacts. The Appellate Division concluded that the City's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence, thereby denying the petition and dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Environmental LawRezoningSEQRACEQRArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ReviewLand UseUrban PlanningAffordable HousingInwood Neighborhood
References
16
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08434 [156 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

Matter of Montoya v. Davis

The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child custody and visitation. The Family Court had granted the father sole legal and primary physical custody, but the Appellate Division found its reliance on a biased forensic evaluator's report to be an improper delegation of its fact-finding role. Consequently, the appellate court reversed parts of the Family Court's decision. It awarded joint legal custody to both parents, with the mother retaining primary physical custody of their child. The father was granted specific parenting time, and the court affirmed that conditioning the mother's future visits on counseling was improper.

Parental AlienationChild CustodyVisitation RightsFamily Court Act Article 6Forensic EvaluationAppellate ReviewBest Interests of the ChildRelocation FactorsJoint Legal CustodyPrimary Physical Custody
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1976

In re Louis F.

This proceeding was initiated by foster parents under Social Services Law section 392 to review the foster care status of the child Louis F., aiming to free him for adoption. Respondents, the Department of Social Services, Catholic Home Bureau, and the natural mother, sought to continue foster care, with the agency planning for the child's discharge to the natural mother. The foster parents moved for prehearing disclosure of various records related to the child and his natural parents, which the Family Court denied for lack of sufficient necessity. The Appellate Division affirmed this denial. The court reiterated that while foster parents, as parties in a foster care review, may obtain disclosure upon a proper showing of necessity coupled with in camera viewing by the Family Court, in this instance, after its own appellate in camera review, it found no abuse of discretion in the Family Court's decision.

Foster CareChild WelfareSocial Services LawDisclosureIn Camera InspectionFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsAdoption Proceedings
References
1
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00908 [213 AD3d 1117]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Petre v. Allied Devices Corp.

Claimant Gheorghe Petre appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The underlying Board decision had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, which amended the claimant's work-related injury claim and directed his doctor to seek prior authorization for Gabapentin. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the Board's denial, limiting its scope to whether the Board had abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily. Finding no new evidence, material change in condition, or improper consideration of issues by the Board, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision. Thus, the claimant's appeal for reconsideration and/or full Board review was ultimately denied.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionReconsiderationInjury ClaimMedical ExpensesDrug FormularyGabapentinProcedural Due ProcessAdministrative Law
References
7
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06495 [143 AD3d 710]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2016

Matter of City of Long Beach v. Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 287

The City of Long Beach appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the case, reiterating that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited, permissible only if the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds the arbitrator's power. The Court found that the arbitrator did not apply an incorrect standard of review and that the award itself did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not clearly exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order and judgment.

Arbitration awardJudicial reviewPublic policy violationIrrational arbitrationArbitrator's powerAppellate Division Second DepartmentCPLR Article 75Vacate arbitration awardFirefighters Association disputeNassau County Supreme Court
References
10
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05778 [152 AD3d 1016]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

Riverkeeper, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

This case involves an appeal by Riverkeeper, Inc. challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to grant SPDES and Title V permits to Danskammer Energy, LLC for a natural gas electric generating station. Riverkeeper sought annulment of the permits and a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), arguing for a public adjudicatory hearing and a new source review. The Supreme Court dismissed the applications, and the Appellate Division affirmed this judgment. The appellate court found DEC's determinations regarding the lack of need for a public hearing, compliance with thermal discharge regulations through a 'mixing zone' policy, and the non-permanent nature of the station's shutdown for new source review purposes to be rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

Environmental LawPermit RenewalSPDES PermitTitle V PermitState Environmental Quality Review ActPublic HearingNew Source ReviewWater Quality StandardsThermal DischargeClean Air Act
References
37
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07633 [189 AD3d 1831]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2020

Matter of Karwowska v. Air Tech Lab, Inc.

Three claimants appealed Workers' Compensation Board (Board) decisions denying their applications for review of Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) findings. The Board denied the applications because the claimants failed to fully complete question number 15 on their RB-89 forms, which required specifying the objection or exception made to the WCLJ's ruling and when it was interposed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, stating that the Board has discretion to deny review when parties represented by counsel fail to comply with its procedural requirements. The court found that the claimants' responses were deficient as they only identified when the objection was made, not the specific objection itself, thus violating 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1), (2) (ii).

Workers' Compensation LawBoard ReviewProcedural ComplianceApplication for ReviewRB-89 formAdministrative ReviewWCLJ DecisionAppellate ProcedureRegulatory ComplianceClaim Denied
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 12,934 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