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

Husted v. Central New York Oil & Gas Co.

Plaintiff Donald Husted, an employee of Collins & Walton Plumbing & Heating Contractors, Inc. (C&W), was injured after falling into an unguarded hole at a gas storage facility owned by Central New York Oil and Gas Company, LLC (CNYOG). The hole was drilled by Mateo Electric Corporation and allegedly obscured by G. Webster, Inc. Husted and his wife sued CNYOG, Mateo, and Webster for negligence and Labor Law § 200 violations. CNYOG sought indemnification from Mateo, Webster, and C&W. The Supreme Court initially dismissed plaintiff's claims against CNYOG and granted conditional indemnification to CNYOG against Mateo and Webster, while denying it against C&W. The Supreme Court also dismissed CNYOG's third-party complaint against C&W. On appeal, the higher court modified the order, reversing the dismissal of plaintiff's claims against CNYOG, reversing the conditional indemnification against Mateo and Webster, and reversing the dismissal of CNYOG's third-party complaint against C&W. The court found that CNYOG failed to prove it lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition and that questions of fact remained regarding its negligence, making summary judgment on indemnification premature.

Labor Law § 200Workers' Compensation Law § 11General Obligations Law § 5-322.1Premises LiabilityConstruction AccidentPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnification ClaimsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual Indemnification
References
22
Case No. CA 15-01542
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2016

JOHNSTON'S L.P. GAS SERVICE, INC., GABRIEL, HUGO RAFAEL RAMIREZ v

Plaintiffs, undocumented farm workers, suffered injuries from a propane gas explosion in their living quarters, leading to an action against Johnston’s L.P. Gas Service, Inc., the propane supplier. Johnston’s initiated a third-party action against the farm owners and plaintiffs' employers, the DeMarco defendants, seeking contribution or indemnification. The Supreme Court denied Johnston’s summary judgment motion and partially denied the DeMarco defendants' motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing claims against Johnston’s regarding propane odorization and granting the DeMarco defendants' motion concerning plaintiff Lucio Jimenez Gabriel due to workers' compensation exclusivity and the absence of a 'grave injury.' The court affirmed the denial of Johnston’s motion regarding causation and failure to warn, citing unresolved factual issues.

Propane ExplosionWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjurySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnCausationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionFacial DisfigurementUndocumented Farm Workers
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1981

Rutherford v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

This case involves an appeal in a proceeding to confirm an arbitrator's award. The petitioner, an employee of Brooklyn Union Gas Company, was injured during employment and received workers' compensation and no-fault benefits. After settling a third-party action, the workers' compensation insurer, Utilities Mutual Insurance Co., obtained a lien on the recovery. The core issue was whether the petitioner was entitled to reimbursement from the no-fault carrier for the lien amount, based on the Court of Appeals' decision in Grello v Daszykowski and subsequent amendments to Workers' Compensation Law § 29. An arbitrator found in favor of the petitioner, but the Supreme Court vacated the award, arguing Grello should not be applied retroactively. The appellate court reversed this decision, confirming the arbitrator's award by citing the applicable statute and regulation.

Arbitration awardworkers' compensation lienno-fault benefitsInsurance Law §671Workers' Compensation Law §29Grello v Daszykowskiretroactivityappellate reviewstatutory interpretationinsurance regulation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conderman v. Rochester Gas & Electric Corp.

This case concerns injuries sustained by plaintiffs Beverly A. Conderman, Lee Napolitano, and Robin E. Galland when utility poles fell during an ice storm. The defendants, Rochester Gas & Electric Corporation and Ogden Telephone Company, removed and disposed of the fallen poles within 24 hours as part of an emergency response. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment and/or sanctions for spoliation of evidence, arguing the poles were critical and disposed of when litigation was probable. While the Supreme Court denied summary judgment on liability, it granted sanctions, allowing plaintiffs to use res ipsa loquitur. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying the motion in its entirety, ruling that sanctions were not warranted as the defendants acted in good faith during an emergency without notice of pending litigation.

Spoliation of evidenceUtility polesIce stormEmergency responseSummary judgmentSanctionsRes ipsa loquiturNegligencePublic safetyDuty to preserve evidence
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00983 [213 AD3d 905]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2023

Castano v. Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC

Nick Castano, the plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, in his personal injury action against Algonquin Gas Transmission, LLC, and Henkels & McCoy, Inc., alleging Labor Law violations. Castano sustained injuries while working on a pipeline project when a heavy pipe allegedly struck his leg. The Supreme Court had previously granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied Castano's cross-motions for summary judgment and to amend his bill of particulars. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the defendants' motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granting Castano leave to amend his bill of particulars. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Castano's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability, noting the existence of triable issues of fact regarding proximate causation and the adequacy of safety devices.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectElevation-Related RiskPipeline ProjectIndustrial CodePleading Amendment
References
17
Case No. 179 CA 20-00832
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 2021

Didas v. Rochester Gas & Elec. Corp.

Plaintiff Regan Didas sued Rochester Gas and Electric Corporation for injuries sustained after falling through an inadequately covered hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court granted Didas partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The court determined that Labor Law § 240 (1) applied due to an elevation-related risk and rejected the defendant's arguments regarding plaintiff's culpability, also finding a violation of Industrial Code 23-1.7 (b) (1) (i) regarding unsecured covers over hazardous openings. Additionally, the Appellate Division denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, concluding the case involved a dangerous condition for which the defendant could be liable.

Labor LawElevation-related RiskSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentUnsecured PlywoodIndustrial Code ViolationProximate CauseDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mattarelliano v. Moish Gas Stations, Inc.

In this personal injury action, the court reviewed an appeal regarding motions for summary judgment. The appellate court modified a lower court order by granting summary judgment to Chuck Realty Corp., thereby dismissing the complaint against it. However, the claims against Moish Gas Stations, Inc. were not dismissed, as the court found it to be a distinct legal entity from the employer and not an alter ego. The original order was affirmed in all other respects. This decision clarifies corporate liability and the application of Workers' Compensation Law in multi-party litigation.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentCorporate LiabilityAlter EgoWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewPremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionCross-MotionDismissal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bombard v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants Central Hudson Gas & Electric Company and Mid-Hudson Auto Wreckers, Inc., thereby dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. The plaintiff, Bombard, had previously alleged a breach of common-law duty to provide a safe workplace and sought to amend the complaint to include a cause of action under Labor Law § 241 (6). The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that there was no new evidence to support Central Hudson's supervision or control over the plaintiff's work, a prerequisite for the safe workplace claim. Similarly, Mid-Hudson was found not to have exercised sufficient supervision, and the danger posed by power lines was deemed readily observable, negating a duty to protect from obvious hazards. Furthermore, the court denied the motion to amend the complaint, ruling that the work of removing cars from a junkyard did not fall within the scope of 'construction, excavation or demolition' as required by Labor Law § 241 (6).

Summary judgmentLabor LawWorkplace safetySupervision and controlObvious dangerAppellate reviewCommon-law dutyNegligenceStatutory interpretationJunkyard accident
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. 00-CV-6118, 00-CV-6101
Regular Panel Decision

Bonner v. New York State Electric & Gas Corp.

Leslie Maynard and Melvin Bonner, both first-class gas fitters for New York State Electric & Gas (NYSEG), suffered work-related injuries that resulted in permanent partial disabilities. After a period of light-duty assignments, NYSEG placed them on disability leave, citing the unavailability of such work and their inability to perform the essential functions of a first-class gas fitter. Consequently, Maynard and Bonner filed complaints alleging violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The court granted NYSEG's motions for summary judgment, concluding that neither plaintiff was capable of performing the essential functions of their desired job, even with reasonable accommodation. The court further clarified that the ADA does not require employers to create new positions, like a light-duty first-class gas fitter role, to accommodate disabled employees. Therefore, both complaints were dismissed.

Americans with Disabilities ActADASummary JudgmentEmployment DiscriminationDisability RightsEssential Job FunctionsReasonable AccommodationLight-Duty WorkPermanent Partial DisabilityWorkplace Injury
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 145 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