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

M.G.M. Insulation, Inc. v. Gardner

R-J Taylor General Contractors, Inc. and its subcontractors challenged a determination by the Department of Labor's Bureau of Public Work, which found their fire station construction project subject to prevailing wage requirements under Labor Law § 220. The Bureau concluded that the Bath Volunteer Fire Department (BVFD), despite being a not-for-profit corporation, functioned as a municipal department, and the fire station construction was a public work project. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this determination. The court affirmed the Department of Labor's finding, concluding there was substantial evidence that BVFD was the functional equivalent of a municipal corporation and that the project served a public benefit. Consequently, the prevailing wage requirements were applicable, and the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Work ProjectMunicipal CorporationFire Protection ServicesNot-for-Profit CorporationLabor Law § 220CPLR Article 78Functional EquivalencyState Environmental Quality Review ActConstruction Contract
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sponholz v. Benderson Property Development, Inc.

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The dissenting judges argue that a stairway, temporarily used during a renovation project with its wall removed, should be considered the 'functional equivalent of a ladder' and thus fall under the protection of Labor Law § 240 (1). They emphasize that this statute should be construed liberally to protect workers. The dissenters disagree with the majority's reliance on a precedent case and would reverse the order to grant the plaintiffs' motion.

Labor Law § 240(1)Stairway as LadderRenovation ProjectTemporary Use of StairwayWorker SafetyStatutory InterpretationPartial Summary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
5
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07752
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2016

Matter of Keniya G. (Avery P.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order which found appellant Avery P. to be a person legally responsible for the child M.W. and guilty of neglect, with derivative neglect for other children. The court determined that Avery P. acted as the functional equivalent of a parent, citing his regular involvement in the children's care and household contributions. Crucially, M.W.'s out-of-court statement regarding a sexually threatening comment from Avery P. was corroborated by his criminal history of sexual assault against minors and his classification as a high-risk sex offender. The court found sufficient evidence to support the finding of neglect.

NeglectChild ProtectionParental ResponsibilityFunctional Equivalent of a ParentSex OffenderRecidivismCorroborationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewChild Welfare
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wescott v. Shear

Plaintiff Duane Wescott, a laborer, was injured after falling from a temporary stairway at a construction site due to a loose plank. He and his wife commenced an action against the project owners and general contractors, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The Supreme Court denied their motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the court determined that the temporary stairway was the functional equivalent of a ladder and fell within the 'other devices' designation of Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes absolute liability. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted the plaintiffs' motion, and awarded them partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Construction AccidentLabor LawScaffolding LawAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureWorker SafetyTemporary StructuresPersonal InjuryDuty to Furnish Protection
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Children's Village v. Holbrook

A not-for-profit child care agency applied to the Town Board of Clarkstown for a special permit to operate a group home for adolescent boys in an R-22 residential zoning district. The Town Board denied the application, prompting the agency to initiate a CPLR article 78 proceeding, later converted to a declaratory judgment action. The Supreme Court initially held the proposed group home was family-like and didn't require a special permit. On appeal, the court found that the Town Zoning Ordinance's definition of 'family' was facially unconstitutional under the State Due Process Clause because it unequally restricted the size of functionally equivalent families compared to traditional ones. The judgment was modified to declare the ordinance's definition of 'family' unconstitutional and was affirmed as modified.

Zoning LawDue Process ClauseConstitutional LawGroup HomesSpecial Use PermitsFamily DefinitionMunicipal OrdinanceAppellate CourtRockland CountyNew York State Constitution
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers ex rel. C.N. v. Astrue

This case concerns Plaintiff Brenda Myers' application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits on behalf of her daughter, C.N., alleging disability due to diabetes, speech/motor delays, and ADHD. The Commissioner of Social Security denied the application, a decision upheld by an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ). Plaintiff sought judicial review, challenging the ALJ's record development, credibility determination, and functional equivalence assessment. The Magistrate Judge found the ALJ erred in discounting Plaintiff's credibility and concluding C.N. lacked marked limitations in 'acquiring and using information' and 'attending to and completing tasks.' Consequently, the court reversed the Commissioner's decision, granted Plaintiff's motion, and remanded the case for calculation of benefits to avoid further delay.

Disability benefitsSSISocial Security ActADHDdiabetes mellitusspeech delaymotor delaysfunctional limitationsadministrative recordcredibility
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2005

Beharry v. Public Storage, Inc.

The plaintiff, Deonarine Beharry, an iron worker, sustained injuries after falling through metal decking while ascending unfinished stairs at a construction site. He sued the property owners, Public Storage, Inc. and PSAC Development Partners, LP, and the general contractor, Racanelli Construction Company, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's motion for judgment as a matter of law on liability. The defendants appealed, arguing the metal decking was not a safety device and the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, determining that the metal decking served as a functional equivalent of a ladder under Labor Law § 240 (1) and the plaintiff's conduct was not the sole proximate cause.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffold LawLiabilityMetal DeckingSafety DeviceProximate CauseAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paul v. Ryan Homes, Inc.

A painter, employed by Color Coatings, Inc., was injured at a Ryan Homes, Inc. construction site in July 2000 when an unsecured plank he used to enter a house tipped, causing him to fall. The plaintiff sued Ryan Homes, Inc. for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), with Ryan Homes, Inc. subsequently filing a third-party action against Color Coatings, Inc. for contractual indemnification. The appellate court examined whether the fall from the plank fell under Labor Law § 240 (1), distinguishing between planks used as passageways and those as functional equivalents of scaffolds or ladders. The court concluded the plank was merely a passageway, not a work tool, thus Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply, and modified the order to dismiss that cause of action.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-related hazardUnsecured plankPassageway vs. scaffoldGravity-related accidentSummary judgmentConstruction site injuryWorker fallThird-party actionContractual indemnification
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 1996

Takayama v. Schaefer

The case addresses whether an escrow agent, whose agreement is silent on dispute resolution, must deposit funds into court to avoid liability for interest and costs. Plaintiff Rie Takayama sued defendant Helmut Schaefer and his attorney, David E. Weissman (escrow agent), for the return of a $12,000 down payment after her mortgage application failed. Weissman held the funds in an IOLA account, requesting proof of good faith efforts. The trial court found for Takayama, holding both Schaefer and Weissman liable for the down payment, interest, and costs. The Appellate Term affirmed Weissman's liability for interest and costs, suggesting he should have used an interpleader action. This court reversed, ruling that an attorney-escrow agent, by securing funds in an IOLA account and awaiting a court order, performs the functional equivalent of an interpleader, thus avoiding personal liability for interest and costs.

escrow agent liabilityattorney ethicsreal estate contractcontract disputemortgage contingencyIOLA accountinterpleader actionfiduciary dutyappellate reviewinterest and costs
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2021

Matter of Suhr v. New York State Dept. of Civ. Serv.

Petitioner Daniel R. Suhr requested records from the New York State Department of Civil Service under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), specifically seeking employee names and home zip codes. Respondent partially denied the request, withholding home zip codes citing privacy exemptions. Suhr then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, where the Supreme Court partially granted his application, ordering the disclosure of the zip codes. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that home zip codes are functionally equivalent to an address for FOIL purposes. The court concluded that disclosing home zip codes, when paired with employee names, constitutes an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy under Public Officers Law §§ 87(2)(a) and 87(2)(b), outweighing the minimal public interest in such information.

FOILPublic Officers LawPrivacy ExemptionHome Zip CodesState EmployeesCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewGovernment TransparencyData DisclosurePersonal Privacy
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 468 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