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. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 4964 157576/12
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC

Edward Bradley, an elevator mechanic, died from electrocution while working in a building owned by HWA 1290 III LLC. His estate sued for wrongful death, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations due to unsafe conditions, specifically inadequate lighting and uncovered electrical transformers. The Supreme Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants created the dangerous conditions or had actual or constructive notice of them. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. A dissenting opinion argued that issues of fact existed regarding the lighting, lack of transformer covers, and absence of a required helper.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathElectrocutionElevator AccidentWorkplace SafetyLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, P.C. v. New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance

Plaintiff Elmont Open MRI & Diagnostic Radiology, PC. sued defendant New York Central Mutual Fire Insurance Company (NYCMFIC) for overdue first-party no-fault benefits following a brain MRI performed on Abdelghani Kinane. NYCMFIC moved for summary judgment, asserting the action was premature because Elmont allegedly failed to respond to verification requests, thereby tolling NYCMFIC's time to pay or deny the claim. Elmont countered with an affidavit from its billing supervisor, Brijkumar Yamraj, and a certificate of mailing, proving the requested MRI films and information were sent to NYCMFIC on November 12, 2008. The court found Elmont's proof of mailing sufficient to establish a response, thus denying NYCMFIC's motion and subsequently granting summary judgment to Elmont upon searching the record.

No-fault insuranceVerification requestsSummary judgmentProof of mailingMedical benefitsInsurance claims processTolling of time limitMotor vehicle accidentRadiology fee scheduleBusiness records
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2011

Alfonso v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

The plaintiff, a 52-year-old office worker, sustained a comminuted intraarticular fracture of the distal radial metaphysis of her right wrist and a cervical herniated disc after being struck by a truck owned by the Transit Authority. After a failed closed reduction, she underwent open reduction surgery with internal fixation and extensive physical therapy, resulting in reduced range of motion, continued pain, and progressive arthritis. A jury awarded the plaintiff $450,000 for past pain and suffering and $800,000 for future pain and suffering. The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed this judgment, determining that the awards did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

personal injurymotor vehicle accidentfracturewrist injuryneck injuryshoulder injurypain and sufferingjury verdictaffirmationnegligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2004

People v. Arotin

The case concerns an appeal by an unnamed defendant against an order from the Saratoga County Court, which classified him as a risk level III sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant, previously convicted in Ohio for attempted gross sexual imposition and classified as a "sexually oriented offender," contested the New York classification upon his relocation, arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause should compel New York to recognize his lower Ohio classification and that the evidence was insufficient for a Level III designation. The appellate court affirmed that states have the power to apply their own registration requirements, rejecting the Full Faith and Credit argument. However, it found that specific factors used to justify the level III classification, namely "deviate sexual intercourse" and "history of substance abuse," lacked clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order and remitted the matter to the County Court for reclassification.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Level ClassificationFull Faith and Credit ClauseRecidivismSexually Oriented OffenderAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceOhio LawNew York LawSex Offender Assessment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill Lynch Realty Associates, Inc. v. Burr

Merrill Lynch Realty Carll Burr, Inc. (MLRCB) and Merrill Lynch Realty Associates, Inc. (MLRA) sued Carll S. Burr III and other defendants over the use of the 'Burr' name in real estate. The dispute originated from a 1980 acquisition agreement and a subsequent employment contract with restrictive covenants. A previous settlement in 1984 also restricted Carll S. Burr III's use of the name. After MLRCB ceased using the 'Carll Burr' name, Carll S. Burr III established 'Carll Burr Realty'. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of the 1984 stipulation, damages, and a permanent injunction. The appellate court found that the lower court improvidently granted a preliminary injunction, citing sharply disputed facts regarding an alleged oral agreement to modify the contract and the plaintiffs' potential abandonment of the 'Burr' name. Additionally, the plaintiffs' sale of their real estate business undermined claims of irreparable injury, making preliminary injunctive relief unwarranted.

Preliminary InjunctionRestrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseOral ModificationContract DisputeTrade NameBusiness SaleIrreparable HarmBalancing of EquitiesDisputed Facts
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01479 [169 AD3d 1328]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

Santos v. State of New York

Agnaldo Dos Santos, an employee of P.S. Bruckel, Inc., was injured in November 2015 while working on a bridge owned by the State of New York, sustaining a fractured ankle after falling through an opening in a temporary deck during sandblasting. He commenced an action against the State under Labor Law § 240 (1), alleging a failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Court of Claims granted Dos Santos's motion for partial summary judgment on liability and denied the State's motion to dismiss the claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the opening in the deck constituted an elevation-related risk and that Dos Santos was not the sole proximate cause of the accident, as there was no evidence he was instructed to cover the opening or request it be covered.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardScaffold defectSummary judgmentProximate causeAppellate reviewPersonal injuryConstruction accidentBridge workFractured ankle
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State Laundry Corp. & Laundry Workers Joint Board

The respondent sought to open a default on a motion to confirm an arbitration award, which was granted on November 29, 1960. The respondent's attorney was informed of the default on November 28, 1960, and was served with the order on December 13, 1960. Despite this, the motion to open the default was not filed until February 21, 1960, nearly three months later, with the only explanation being an unspecified family death. The court denied the motion, finding the excuse for the significant delay insufficient and the respondent's affidavit of merits lacking in facts necessary to vacate or modify the award. The court also affirmed that a party who participated in arbitration cannot claim the arbitrator exceeded authority, and judicial intervention is unwarranted for factual or legal errors if the arbitrator had jurisdiction.

ArbitrationDefault JudgmentMotion PracticeExcuse for DelayAffidavit of MeritsJurisdictionJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsCivil Practice ActArbitrator AuthorityDenial of Motion
References
2
Case No. ADJ7486243
Regular
May 23, 2011

WALTER ROSS III vs. SOUTHGATE PARKS AND RECREATION DISTRICT, YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by Applicant Walter Ross III against Southgate Parks and Recreation District and York Insurance Services Group. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) reviewed the petition and the WCJ's report. Finding no grounds for removal, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's reasoning and denied the petition. The order officially denies Walter Ross III's petition for removal.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportDeny RemovalSouthgate Parks and Recreation DistrictYork Insurance Services GroupADJ7486243Oakland District OfficeDecision and OrderAdministrative Law Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Park v. City of New York

In a personal injury action arising from a construction site accident, the Supreme Court, New York County, initially reduced a jury's award for past pain and suffering from $1,500,000 to $600,000. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified by the Appellate Division. The appellate court further directed a new trial on future pain and suffering unless the plaintiff agreed to a reduction of the award from $800,000 to $400,000. The decision was based on a comparison to similar cases involving comminuted elbow/arm fractures, multiple surgeries, and permanent limitations, while noting the plaintiff's non-dominant wrist fracture added little value as it resolved without surgery.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentDamagesPain and SufferingJury Award ReductionAppellate ReviewFractureElbow InjuryWrist InjuryStipulation
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 690 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