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. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1975

Suffolk Educational Chapter v. Board of Education

This case involves a petitioner's challenge to a respondent's determination to reclassify six school matrons to custodial workers, placing them at a lower salary step. Previously at Step 7 as school matrons, they were moved to Step 2 of the custodial worker classification, resulting in a smaller salary increase than if they had maintained their original step. The petitioner alleged sex-based discrimination, arguing the matrons were entitled to their original step in the new classification. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, reinstated the petition, and remitted the proceeding for a hearing to determine the relationship between the duties of school matrons and custodial workers, which is critical for adjudicating the sex-biased discrimination claim.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment ReclassificationSalary DisputeCustodial WorkerSchool MatronRemandAppellate ReviewCivil ServantSuffolk County Supreme Court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1983

Claim of Hughes v. New York Telephone Co.

A line foreman, though not on duty, was requested by his employer to check a report of a broken pole. While preparing to use a company car parked in his driveway for this task, he sustained an injury to his mouth after stepping on a rake. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that this injury arose out of and in the course of his employment. The employer appealed, arguing that, as a matter of law, the injury did not arise from employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule regarding risks of travel to and from work. It concluded that the Board's finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand ExceptionCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentOff-Duty WorkEmployee InjuryAppellate ReviewAffirmationOccupational HazardWorkplace Accident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2003

Medina v. MSDW 140 Broadway Property, L.L.C.

A window washer sued a building owner and a rigging company after falling four feet from a window washing rig due to a broken handrail while attempting to access a scaffold. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court determined that the steps to the scaffold were a 'device' within the meaning of the Labor Law and that the rigging company, responsible for installation and maintenance, acted as the owner's 'agent.' Defendants' appeal, raising new arguments about factual issues and pleading deficiencies, was unanimously affirmed as these claims were improperly presented for the first time on appeal.

Window Washing Rig AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Falling from HeightPremises LiabilityStatutory AgentPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHandrail FailureElevated Work SafetyBuilding Owner Liability
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02995 [238 AD3d 541]
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2025

Solarte v. Brearley Sch.

Adrian Oscar Oseguera Solarte was injured after falling on a broken step while descending a staircase at The Brearley School, where his employer, PAL Environmental Services, Inc., was performing asbestos abatement. The Supreme Court denied motions for summary judgment from both PAL and the defendants (Brearley School and E.W. Howell Co., LLC) regarding various claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. It granted summary judgment to defendants, dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims and granting their contractual indemnification claim against PAL. The Appellate Division otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision, allowing the Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims to proceed.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentStaircase AccidentLatent DefectNotice Requirement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bretts v. Lincoln Plaza Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Johnny's Pizza and Lincoln Plaza Associates, Inc., from an order denying their motions for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The injured plaintiff allegedly tripped over a single-step riser on premises owned by Lincoln Plaza Associates and leased by Johnny's Pizza. The defendants contended the step was an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition. The Supreme Court initially denied their motions, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that they successfully established the step was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOpen and Obvious ConditionNegligenceSlip and FallAppellate ReviewLandowner DutyHazardous ConditionDuty to Warn
References
7
Case No. 202 AD3d 1185
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Podhurst v. Village of Monticello

Cayla Podhurst slipped on ice on public steps near a synagogue, suffering an ankle injury. Although the steps were public, the Landfield Avenue Synagogue Jewish General Aid Society exclusively maintained them. Podhurst sued the synagogue for negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment on the snow removal claim but prohibited a 'special use' theory of liability. After a jury found the synagogue negligent, the Supreme Court set aside the verdict. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that the Supreme Court erred in precluding the special use theory. The court noted evidence suggesting the synagogue rebuilt and specifically benefited from the steps, warranting a new trial to consider this theory of liability.

NegligenceSlip and FallPremises LiabilityAbutting LandownerSpecial Use DoctrineSnow and Ice RemovalSummary JudgmentVerdict Set AsideAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. New York State Department of Labor

This case addresses a challenge to respondent's determination concerning prevailing wage schedules for telecommunication workers in New York. The respondent had merged voice and data telecommunications work into a single "telecommunication worker" category and adopted a multi-tiered step rate wage schedule, asserting progression was based solely on longevity. Petitioners, including Local 363 of the IBEW, argued that this schedule was flawed as progression through step rates was contingent on skill mastery and training, effectively making lower-tier workers trainees. The court, citing Labor Law § 220 (3), found evidence supporting the petitioners' claim that advancement required acquired skills, not just time. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's judgment, annulled the respondent's determination, and granted the petition, concluding that adopting the full step rate schedule was arbitrary and capricious.

Wage disputeTelecommunication workersPrevailing wage lawLabor Law § 220Step rate wage scheduleApprenticeship programSkill-based progressionLongevity-based payJudicial reviewArticle 78 proceeding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2006

Claim of Cushion v. Brooklyn Botanic Garden

Claimant, an employee of Brooklyn Botanic Garden, sustained an injury after falling on a broken sidewalk in a public parking lot adjacent to her workplace while commuting home. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the case as a work-related injury, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, reasoning that the risk of injury from the broken sidewalk was not a "special hazard" but a risk shared with the general public, thus falling outside the compensable "gray area" of the going and coming rule.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentGoing and Coming RulePublic Parking LotOff-Premises InjurySpecial HazardGray Area DoctrineSidewalk Fall
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2013

Verdon v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Plaintiff sustained injuries after falling 14 feet from a trailing platform due to a broken guardrail. The court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff, finding a prima facie violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) as the guardrail proved inadequate. The defendants' arguments regarding an unwitnessed accident not barring summary judgment and the rejection of a superseding cause defense were dismissed. However, the third-party defendants and second third-party defendant (lumber suppliers) were granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaints against them due to insufficient evidence to identify the specific lumber supplier for the broken guardrail, as lumber was commingled and discarded before inspection.

Labor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentGuardrail FailureConstruction AccidentFall from HeightThird-Party LiabilityLumber SupplierSuperseding CauseEvidentiary StandardUnwitnessed Accident
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 266 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