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

Rivera v. Lopez

The plaintiff, injured while working as a doorman at the defendant's bar and grill, initiated a negligence action against the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that workers' compensation was the plaintiff's exclusive remedy. The court found that the lower court erred in deciding the summary judgment motion based on the record presented. The proper procedure required referring the case to the Workers’ Compensation Board, which holds exclusive jurisdiction over factual and mixed questions of law and fact concerning workers’ compensation coverage. The order was unanimously reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationNegligenceSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyJurisdictionEmployee StatusAppellate ReviewRemittalDoormanBar and Grill
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tenenbaum v. State Division of Human Rights

In this proceeding, the petitioner sought to annul a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed the State Division of Human Rights' dismissal of an age discrimination complaint. The petitioner, a former doorman, alleged he was fired due to age, a claim the Division dismissed after an investigation citing misappropriation of funds. The court found the Division's investigation "abbreviated and one-sided" due to unresolved factual issues and the petitioner's absence from a preliminary conference. Concluding the determination was "arbitrary and capricious," the court granted the petition, annulled the previous orders, and remanded the case to the State Division of Human Rights for further investigation.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationHuman Rights LawAdministrative ReviewJudicial AnnulmentProbable CauseInvestigative Due ProcessRemand for InvestigationArbitrary and CapriciousMisappropriation Claims
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Derello v. Wyndham Poughkeepsie Hotel

Claimant, a doorman and driver for Wyndham Poughkeepsie Hotel, sustained serious injuries in an accident after driving a coemployee home in the employer’s shuttle van. The employer argued that claimant had deviated from his 'special errand' and engaged in a personal detour, possibly while intoxicated. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board concluded that the employer failed to rebut the presumptions that the injury arose out of employment and was not solely due to intoxication, finding the accident arose in the course of employment. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, determining that its factual findings were supported by substantial evidence despite conflicting testimony and the employer’s failure to produce key witnesses.

Workers' CompensationSpecial ErrandDeviation from EmploymentIntoxicationPresumptionSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueHearsay EvidenceWork-Related InjuryAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daks Leasing Corp. v. Connell

This case addresses the sufficiency of personal service under CPLR 308 (2) in New York. The plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant by delivering the summons and complaint to the manager of a trailer park, but at a trailer other than the defendant's residence. The court examined whether the service location qualified as the defendant's "actual dwelling place" or "usual place of abode." Distinguishing from precedents where access to a defendant's actual residence was hindered (e.g., by a doorman), the court found no such impediment here. It concluded that the defendant's specific trailer, not the general trailer park, constituted the actual dwelling place. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionService of ProcessCPLR 308 (2)Dwelling PlaceUsual Place of AbodeTrailer ParkMotion to DismissCivil ProcedureNew York LawStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2006

Marrero v. Akam Associates LLC

The plaintiff, a doorman and porter employed by 545 Tenants Corp., sustained third-degree chemical burns from a chemical used for floor stripping. The plaintiff received workers’ compensation benefits. Akam Associates LLC, the building’s managing agent, moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint, asserting it was the plaintiff's special employer, thus barring the action under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 [6]. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied this branch of the cross motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that Akam failed to establish prima facie evidence of a special employment relationship because its allegations regarding control over the plaintiff's work were general and lacked specific supporting facts.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial Employer DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityChemical BurnsPremises LiabilityManaging Agent LiabilityControl Test
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 1995

Antonik v. New York City Housing Authority

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment denying plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary judgment and dismissing the complaint against Republic Elevator Corp., New York City Housing Authority, and Doorman Co., Inc. The case involved a decedent, an experienced worker, who fell down an elevator shaft while using an active elevator. The court ruled that Labor Law § 241-a was inapplicable, and the decedent's attempt to exit a stalled elevator constituted an intervening and superseding cause for the accident under Labor Law § 240 (1). Furthermore, statements attributed to an eyewitness in police reports were deemed inadmissible hearsay as the witness was not under a business duty to speak to the police. The decision emphasized the decedent's experience and the absence of an emergency.

Elevator accidentLabor Lawsummary judgmentintervening actsuperseding causehearsay rulebusiness record exceptionconstruction accidentworker injurypremises liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seeman v. Local 32B-32J, Service Employees Union

Jonah Seeman, a long-term doorman with Gracie Gardens Owners Corp., was suspended due to bedbug infestation and subsequently resigned. He later sought to rescind his resignation and challenged both his suspension and the Union's handling of his grievance. Seeman alleged that Gracie Gardens breached their collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and that his union, Local 32BJ, Service Employees International Union, breached its duty of fair representation during arbitration. The court found no evidence that the Union acted arbitrarily or in bad faith during the arbitration process, which led to the dismissal of Seeman's grievance. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Gracie Gardens and the Union, as a breach of duty by the Union is a prerequisite for a claim against the employer in a hybrid § 301/fair representation case.

collective bargaining agreementduty of fair representationsummary judgmentLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations Actarbitrationwrongful suspensionemployee resignationbedbug infestationunion representation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2005

Ramirez v. Miller

Plaintiff Jose Ramirez, a doorman, suffered severe burns in a fire and sued Napco Security Group, the manufacturer of an alarm lock on a roof egress door that he claimed failed to open. Napco moved for summary judgment, arguing spoliation of evidence and that plaintiff could not establish a prima facie case of negligence or strict products liability. Napco's expert stated the lock was not defective in design or manufacturing and presented several plausible alternative causes for its alleged failure, such as intentional modification or obstruction. The plaintiffs failed to provide expert testimony to rebut these alternative theories. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied Napco's motion, but the appellate court unanimously reversed that decision, granting summary judgment in favor of Napco and dismissing the complaint against it.

Product LiabilitySummary JudgmentNegligenceStrict LiabilityFire IncidentEgress DoorAlarm LockExpert TestimonySpoliationAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00839
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Mena (Philips Bryant Park LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Giovanni Mena applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing to work as a doorman/bottle host for Philips Bryant Park LLC. The Department of Labor initially determined he was an employee and Philips was liable for contributions. After a series of appeals and remittals, including Philips' initial default, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially overruled the Department's finding. However, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately upheld the ALJ's later decision, which sustained the Department's initial determination of an employer-employee relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the employment relationship based on factors such as Philips setting claimant's schedule and rate of pay, requiring him to punch a time clock, and controlling aspects of his work. The Board's finding that the employment relationship applied to similarly situated individuals was also affirmed.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentControl TestAdministrative Law JudgeUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardParty Promoters
References
10
Showing 1-9 of 9 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