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 15-01542
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
Nov 01, 1990

Sancimino v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

The decedent, a construction worker, died in a natural gas explosion while installing a sewer manhole. His estate commenced an action against Brooklyn Union Gas Company, which then initiated a third-party action against Cafco Construction Corporation, the decedent's employer. A jury found both Brooklyn Union and Cafco negligent, but concluded that Cafco's negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. The Supreme Court, Kings County, entered a judgment of $2,650,000 in favor of the plaintiff against Brooklyn Union. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, as the appellate court found that the jury's verdict was not against the weight of the evidence, citing that Brooklyn Union's failure to properly maintain its service lines could have caused the gas leak.

wrongful deathnegligenceproximate causegas explosionsewer manholejury verdictappellate reviewdamagesconstruction workerBrooklyn Union Gas
References
4
Case No. 2015-260 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2016

Telsey v. Harris Water Main & Sewer Contrs., Inc.

Jerry Telsey (plaintiff) sued Harris Water Main & Sewer Contractors, Inc. (defendant) in a small claims action for $2,800. Telsey claimed defendant should have immediately determined he didn't need a new water main, despite entering into a contract for installation. Defendant argued that subsurface plumbing issues often require excavation to identify the source of problems. The Civil Court dismissed the action, and Telsey appealed. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the case under the 'substantial justice' standard for small claims and affirmed the judgment, finding that substantial justice was done between the parties.

Small ClaimsContract DisputeWater Main InstallationSubsurface PlumbingAppellate ReviewSubstantial JusticeCivil CourtKings CountyExcavationAffirmed Judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Maine

Claude L. Maine, a Chapter 13 debtor, filed for relief, listing a debt to the New York State Department of Labor for unemployment insurance benefits received through alleged willful misrepresentations. After the debtor's plan was confirmed, the State filed a claim and subsequently began deducting from the debtor's current benefits to recover the debt. The debtor moved for an order holding the State in contempt for violating the automatic stay and seeking reimbursement for attorney's fees. The State argued its actions were a permissible set-off under state law, asserting the debtor had no entitlement to future benefits until the fraudulent overpayment was recovered. The Court concluded that the State's recovery from future benefits constituted a common-law right of recoupment, which survived the bankruptcy discharge and did not violate the automatic stay. Consequently, the debtor's motion was denied in its entirety.

BankruptcyChapter 13Automatic StayUnemployment InsuranceSetoffRecoupmentFraudulent ClaimsDebtor's RightsCreditor's RightsNew York Law
References
17
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 314 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