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

In re Kristopher I.

This case concerns an appeal from an Ulster County Family Court order adjudicating a respondent, born in 1987, a person in need of supervision (PINS) due to chronic school absenteeism. The respondent argued that emotional disability caused the absences and that the Family Court applied an incorrect evidentiary standard, using "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as required by Family Court Act § 744 (b). The appellate court agreed with the respondent regarding the evidentiary standard error. However, after independently reviewing the record, the appellate court determined that even with the correct standard, the evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the unlawfulness of the respondent's persistent absences despite documented mental health issues. Consequently, the order adjudicating the respondent a PINS was affirmed.

PINS ProceedingTruancySchool AbsenteeismEvidentiary StandardBeyond a Reasonable DoubtPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMental HealthChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1993

Pennisi v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co.

A longshoreman, having received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, International Terminal Operating Company (ITO), initiated a personal injury action against Standard Fruit & Steamship Company and Netumar Lines. Standard Fruit and Netumar subsequently filed a third-party complaint against ITO for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted ITO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating Standard Fruit's indemnification claim against ITO due to unresolved factual questions regarding Standard Fruit's status as a 'vessel' and the existence of an indemnification contract. The court affirmed the dismissal of contribution claims, citing the LHWCA's exclusivity provision, and remitted the matter for a determination on sanctions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLongshoreman InjurySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintLHWCAVessel StatusContractual IndemnityImplied Indemnity
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Leonard v. Unisys Corp.

Linda M. Leonard suffered severe back injuries in 1987 due to a defective office chair, leading to a lawsuit against her employer (Department of Motor Vehicles) and the chair's sellers/manufacturers (Human Factor Technologies, Inc., Burroughs Corporation, Standard Register Company, and Unisys Corporation). The lawsuit alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. A jury found certain defendants strictly liable and apportioned fault, awarding significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium to Leonard and her husband. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order and judgment, upholding the jury's verdict, the damage awards, and the denial of indemnification claims between defendants, while rejecting challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.

Products liabilityBreach of warrantyNegligenceIndemnification claimLoss of consortium damagesPain and suffering awardJury verdict reviewApportionment of liabilitySuccessor corporation liabilityDefective chair
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. Dkt. No. 63
Regular Panel Decision

Dunbar Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Landis Plastics, Inc.

Petitioner Sandra Dunbar, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), sought to amend her petition and resume Section 10(j) injunction proceedings against respondent Landis Plasties, Inc. Landis opposed, arguing prior compliance with a settlement agreement, lack of NLRB authority to revoke it, undue delay, and bad faith, while also requesting discovery and evidentiary hearings. Judge Pooler found Landis' arguments lacked merit, emphasizing the liberal standard for amending pleadings and the NLRB's authority to revoke informal settlements. Consequently, the court granted the NLRB's motion to amend its petition and resume proceedings, denying Landis' requests for expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The decision noted that affidavit evidence was sufficient for the Section 10(j) standard, which is highly deferential to the NLRB, and also granted the NLRB's motion for a discovery protective order.

Section 10(j) InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesMotion to AmendDiscovery DisputeSettlement RevocationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRegional Director AuthorityTemporary ReliefStatus Quo Ante
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Standard, Inc. v. Oakfabco, Inc.

American Standard, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action in state court against OakFabeo, Inc., seeking a declaration of OakFabeo's direct liability for personal injury and product liability claims related to Kewanee boilers manufactured before 1970, and an injunction against OakFabeo disclaiming these obligations. OakFabeo removed the action to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The federal court sua sponte questioned its subject matter jurisdiction, specifically regarding the amount-in-controversy and American Standard's standing. The court concluded that American Standard lacked standing to seek declaratory relief for third-party liabilities and, more definitively, that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not met. Consequently, the case was remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Asbestos LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyStandingRemoval to Federal CourtRemand to State CourtProduct LiabilityThird-Party Liability
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The People v. Reginald Powell

This case addresses the constitutionality of New York's standard for admitting third-party culpability evidence, as set forth in *People v Primo*, in light of the Supreme Court's ruling in *Holmes v South Carolina*. Defendant Reginald Powell was convicted of the murder of Jennifer Katz and argued on appeal that the *Primo* standard infringed upon his Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment rights to present a complete defense by precluding evidence against Warren Powell, the victim's ex-boyfriend and life insurance beneficiary. The Court clarified that the *Primo* standard, which employs a general evidentiary balancing test, is consistent with constitutional principles as it focuses on the probative value of evidence against its potential for prejudice, delay, and confusion. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in precluding the defendant's speculative third-party culpability evidence.

Constitutional LawRight to Present DefenseThird-Party CulpabilityEvidentiary StandardProbative ValueUndue PrejudiceMurderAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Toussaint v. Angello

The petitioners sought a determination that the respondent, Commissioner of Labor, violated Labor Law § 27-a (4) (b) by not adopting a safety standard recommended by the New York State Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Abatement Board. The Supreme Court denied this petition, and that decision was subsequently affirmed. The appellate court clarified that the statute does not compel the Commissioner to automatically promulgate all Board recommendations. Instead, it mandates consultation and a showing of necessity for any new standard. The Commissioner's decision to return the proposal for further review was therefore deemed a lawful exercise of authority, not arbitrary or capricious.

Labor LawSafety StandardsOccupational SafetyHazard Abatement BoardCommissioner of LaborStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawMinisterial Duty
References
2
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07220
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

Cerda v. Cydonia W71, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a personal injury case involving Petronilo Pena Cerda, who was injured due to an unsecured plank on a scaffold. The Supreme Court had granted Cerda partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Cydonia W71, LLC and CCNY Construction Inc., and denied various summary judgment motions by the defendants and third-party defendants regarding liability and contractual indemnification. The appellate court modified the order, conditionally granting Cydonia and CCNY summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Standard Waterproofing Corp., while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that Cerda established his prima facie burden, noting that the bicycle plank required securing, and dismissed arguments regarding plaintiff's credibility or sole proximate cause. Issues of fact concerning Standard's negligence prevented outright summary judgment on its indemnification claim against Xuntos Construction Corp.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Safe Place to WorkElevation-Related HazardScaffolding AccidentContractual IndemnificationVicarious LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewNegligenceProximate Cause
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,670 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