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
Mar 23, 2012

Vasquez v. Cohen Bros. Realty Corp.

Plaintiff Theresa Vasquez brought this action against defendant Cohen Brothers Realty Corporation after her husband, David Vasquez, died during the course of his employment at a building managed by defendant. David Vasquez fell to his death from an exhaust duct after climbing out of a scissor lift while attempting to replace ceiling tiles. The plaintiff alleged defendant was liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide proper safety devices. Defendant cross-moved for summary judgment dismissing the claim and also moved for summary judgment arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied both motions. On appeal, the order was modified to grant plaintiff conditional partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and affirmed the denial of defendant's motion to dismiss based on the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provision, citing outstanding questions of fact regarding defendant's status as a special employer.

Labor LawScissor Lift AccidentFall from HeightWorksite SafetySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial EmployerStrict LiabilityProximate CauseSafety Devices
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2006

Hatfill v. Foster

This decision and order revisits the choice of substantive law in a libel case filed by Dr. Steven Hatfill against Conde Nast Publications, Donald Foster, and The Reader's Digest Association, concerning articles published about the 2001 anthrax attacks. Initially, the court had determined Virginia law applied. However, after further jurisdictional discovery revealed that plaintiff Hatfill had made misrepresentations about his domicile, the court reversed its prior ruling. It concluded that Hatfill was domiciled in Washington D.C. at the time of the articles' publication, and therefore, Washington D.C. law will govern the substantive issues for all defendants. Additionally, the court ordered plaintiff's counsel to show cause why their pro hac vice status should not be revoked due to these alleged misrepresentations and omissions of material facts regarding their client's domicile.

LibelDefamationChoice of LawDomicile DeterminationJurisdictional DiscoveryMisrepresentation to CourtPro Hac Vice RevocationForum ShoppingSingle Publication RuleConflict of Laws
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2011

Olsen v. Kozlowski

The plaintiff, an employee of L & A Builders, Inc., suffered injuries after falling from a residence under construction, initiating a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against the property owners, Shirley F. Kozlowski and Louis F. Kozlowski. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment against Shirley F. Kozlowski but this was challenged on appeal. The appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability in its entirety. This decision stemmed from a triable issue of fact concerning whether Shirley F. Kozlowski was an officer of the plaintiff's employer, L & A Builders, Inc., which could invoke the exclusivity provisions of Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). Consequently, the order was affirmed as modified, ultimately denying the plaintiff's motion.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationProperty Owner LiabilityOfficer ImmunityAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightOneida County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Charter School Ass'n v. Smith

This case involves appeals from two Supreme Court judgments concerning the applicability of Labor Law article 8's prevailing wage provisions to construction, renovation, repair, and maintenance projects undertaken by charter schools. Initially, the Department of Labor (DOL) had issued an opinion that charter school contracts were not subject to these provisions but reversed its stance in 2007. Various charter schools and related entities challenged this new determination, but the Supreme Court dismissed their applications, ruling in favor of DOL. On appeal, the court applied the two-part Erie County test, including modifications from a 2007 statutory amendment, to determine if the projects were subject to prevailing wage laws. The appellate court concluded that charter agreements do not satisfy the requirements of a contract for public work involving laborers, workers, or mechanics, thus reversing the lower court's judgments and declaring charter schools exempt from Labor Law article 8's prevailing wage provisions.

Charter SchoolsPrevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 8Public Work ProjectsDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78Educational CorporationsStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentErie County Test
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concerned Home Care Providers, Inc. v. State

The case concerns a challenge by home care service agencies and a trade association (petitioners) to New York's Wage Parity Law (Public Health Law § 3614-c). This law conditions Medicaid reimbursement for home health care services in the metropolitan New York area on agencies paying home care aides a minimum wage, determined by reference to New York City's Living Wage Law. Petitioners argued the law was unconstitutional due to improper delegation of legislative authority, violation of the "incorporation by reference" clause, and violation of home rule provisions. They also challenged the Department of Health's (DOH) interpretation of "total compensation." The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the respondents (DOH), and the appellate court affirmed, finding no improper delegation, no violation of the incorporation by reference clause, home rule provisions inapplicable as Medicaid is a state concern, and DOH's interpretation of "total compensation" to be rational.

Wage Parity LawHome Health Care ServicesMedicaid ReimbursementConstitutional LawLegislative AuthorityNew York City Living Wage LawHome RuleDue ProcessDepartment of HealthStatutory Interpretation
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nomura Securities International, Inc. v. CIBC World Markets Corp.

Nomura Securities International, Inc. (NSI) sought a permanent stay of arbitration against CIBC World Markets Corporation. The central issue was whether the court or an arbitrator should determine the timeliness of CIBC's arbitration claim, which arose from the 1998 sale of Mexican bonds without associated value recovery rights (VRRs). NSI argued the claim was time-barred under New York's statute of limitations, citing common-law choice-of-law principles. CIBC contended federal law (FAA) applied, placing timeliness decisions with the arbitrator. The court, referencing recent New York Court of Appeals decisions, determined that without an explicit choice-of-law provision in the arbitration agreement stating New York law governs the *enforcement* of the agreement, the arbitrator is the proper authority to decide timeliness. Consequently, NSI's motion for a permanent stay of arbitration was denied.

Arbitration StayStatute of LimitationsFederal Arbitration ActChoice of LawArbitrabilityProcedural ArbitrabilitySubstantive ArbitrabilityNYSE ArbitrationContract DisputeSecurities Transactions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
Case No. 02 CV 7106(RPP)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2003

In Re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by Assuranceforeningen Skuld (Skuld) from a Bankruptcy Court order. Skuld sought to establish a priority maritime lien for unpaid insurance premiums against vessels of Millenium Seacarriers, Inc., which was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The Bankruptcy Court denied Skuld's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to the Foreign Mortgagees (Allfirst Bank and Wayland Investment Funds, L.L.C.), ruling that Norwegian law, stipulated in Skuld's insurance contract, did not recognize such a lien. The District Court affirmed this decision, holding that federal choice of law principles dictate the enforcement of the choice of law provision in the international insurance agreement, leading to the application of Norwegian law where no such maritime lien exists.

Maritime LawChoice of LawForum Selection ClauseInternational ContractBankruptcy AppealSummary JudgmentAdmiralty LawShip MortgagePreferred Maritime LienInsurance Premiums
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Assuranceforeningen Skuld (Gjensidig)-Den Danske Afdeling v. Allfirst Bank (In re Millenium Seacarriers, Inc.)

Assuranceforeningen Skuld, as appellant and adversary plaintiff, appeals a U.S. Bankruptcy Court order from August 1, 2002. The bankruptcy court had denied Skuld's motion for summary judgment and granted summary judgment to Allfirst Bank and Wayland Investment Funds (collectively, Foreign Mortgagees). The central issue was whether unpaid P&I insurance premiums create a maritime lien under the Federal Maritime Lien Act that would take priority over the Foreign Mortgagees' lien on Millenium Seacarriers' vessels. The bankruptcy court, applying Norwegian law based on a choice-of-law clause in the insurance contract, concluded that no such maritime lien exists under Norwegian law. The District Court, presided over by Judge Robert P. Patterson, Jr., affirmed this decision, emphasizing the enforceability of choice-of-law provisions in international maritime insurance agreements.

Maritime LawChoice of LawFederal Maritime Lien ActInsurance PremiumsSummary JudgmentAdmiraltyInternational TransactionNorwegian LawForeign MortgageChapter 11
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 14,959 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