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

Nichols v. BDS Landscape Design

Deborah Nichols, injured in a slip and fall in 2005, sought to enforce an oral settlement for a negligence claim against BDS Landscape Design, William Dobson, III, and National Grange Mutual Insurance. Despite reaching an agreement contingent on a workers' compensation lien waiver, National Grange later disputed the settlement and claimed the action was time-barred after Nichols received the necessary consent. Nichols initiated a special proceeding to compel payment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's order, converting the special proceeding into an action, and held that Nichols failed to establish the existence and terms of the settlement agreement as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallNegligenceSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSpecial ProceedingConversion of ActionWorkers' Compensation LienInsurance Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Enriquez v. Home Lawn Care & Landscaping, Inc.

The claimant filed for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining an injury from falling off a ladder while working for Home Lawn Care and Landscaping, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially determined an employer-employee relationship existed and that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these findings and found Home Lawn Care had violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) due to an untimely notice of controversy. Home Lawn Care appealed. The appellate court agreed that the Board erred in finding a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b) but upheld the Board's determination of an employer-employee relationship and that the injury arose from employment, thus modifying and affirming the Board's decisions.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipScope of EmploymentAccidental InjuryNotice of ControversySubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewLadder FallGutter Cleaning
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06165
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2023

Zapototsky v. Ascape Landscape & Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a personal injury action brought by Orest Zapototsky after he slipped on ice at an outlet mall. The plaintiff sued Ascape Landscape & Construction Corp., responsible for snow removal, and the property owners, Simon Property Group, L.P., and Premium Outlet Partners, L.P. The property owners, referred to as the Simon defendants, sought conditional summary judgment on cross-claims against Ascape for contractual indemnification, breach of duty to defend, and attorney's fees, which the Supreme Court denied. Ascape's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing these cross-claims was granted by the lower court. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the Simon defendants' motion, finding triable issues of fact regarding Ascape's contractual performance. However, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by denying Ascape's cross-motion, concluding that Ascape also failed to demonstrate as a matter of law that the accident was unrelated to its services. Thus, the appeals court ruled that triable issues of fact remain concerning Ascape's obligations to indemnify and defend the Simon defendants.

Personal InjurySlip and FallIce Removal ContractContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contractual Duty to DefendAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewSnow Removal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stachura v. 615-51 Street Realty Corp.

The defendants third-party plaintiffs, 615-51 Street Realty Corp. and New Deal Realty Corp., appealed an order denying summary judgment to New Deal Realty Corp. on a contractual indemnification claim and granting dismissal of that claim to the third-party defendant, J&L Landscaping Inc. The appellate court dismissed the appeal of 615-51 Street Realty Corp. The court reversed the order pertaining to New Deal Realty Corp., finding that the 'hold harmless' agreement between New Deal and J&L was a valid and binding contract supported by consideration and not rendered unenforceable by General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. New Deal Realty Corp. successfully demonstrated its freedom from negligence, and J&L Landscaping Inc. failed to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded in favor of New Deal Realty Corp. on its contractual indemnification claim against J&L Landscaping Inc.

Construction AccidentContractual IndemnificationHold Harmless AgreementSummary JudgmentThird-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral Obligations LawAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury DamagesNegligence
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03354
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Matter of DeWald v. Fiorella's Landscaping

Claimant Eric M. DeWald sought workers' compensation benefits for neck and back injuries sustained in 2014. Benefits were initially awarded but later suspended due to the claimant's failure to provide timely medical progress reports. In 2019, after claimant requested reinstatement, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that he failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market and rescinded the award of benefits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the finding of a temporary partial disability implicitly required the claimant to provide evidence of labor market attachment, which he failed to do. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination.

Labor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityBenefit SuspensionMedical Progress ReportsIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate Division ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board RulingClaimant ObligationProof of DisabilityEntitlement to Benefits
References
9
Case No. ADJ9338501
Regular
Nov 17, 2017

MARTIN TORRES vs. LORAL LANDSCAPING, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision in the case of Martin Torres v. Loral Landscaping, Inc. However, the petitioner subsequently withdrew their Petition for Reconsideration. Consequently, the WCAB vacated its order granting reconsideration and dismissed the petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationPetition for ReconsiderationVacatedDismissedLoral LandscapingSecurity National Insurance CompanyAmtrust North AmericaMartin TorresADJ9338501
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2015

Matter of Rosales v. Eugene J. Felice Landscaping

The case involves an appeal by an employer and its workers’ compensation carrier from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Board affirmed a WCLJ ruling that the claimant, a landscaper injured in 2010, sustained a permanent partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity. The WCLJ had considered various vocational factors, including the claimant's age, limited English skills, and low education, to determine a 10% wage-earning capacity and a $300 weekly benefit rate. The employer argued that vocational factors should not be used to determine wage-earning capacity for computing the compensation rate in permanent partial disability cases. However, the appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, distinguishing permanent from temporary disabilities and concluding that vocational factors are appropriately considered under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) when fixing wage-earning capacity in permanent partial disability cases without actual earnings, especially when the injury contributed to the loss.

permanent partial disabilitywage-earning capacityvocational factorsWorkers' Compensation Law § 15benefit durationcompensation ratephysical impairmentback surgerylimited English skillseducational background
References
10
Case No. No. 96 Civ. 8835(WCC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1998

Ell v. S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc.

Plaintiffs Bobbie J. Ell and Thomas McVeigh filed a state court action in Orange County, New York, alleging injuries from a negligently sprayed fertilizer by employees of S.E.T. Landscape Design, Inc., including Glenn Nixon. Nixon later impleaded LESCO, Inc., the fertilizer manufacturer. Plaintiffs then amended their complaint to directly sue LESCO. LESCO removed the action to federal court, claiming federal question jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331, asserting complete preemption by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA). Defendant Nixon, joined by plaintiffs and S.E.T., moved for remand. The court granted the motion, finding that FIFRA does not completely preempt state law and therefore, federal question jurisdiction was lacking. Additionally, the court noted that removal was improper due to the lack of unanimous consent from all defendants.

Pesticide PreemptionFederal Question JurisdictionRemandWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleComplete PreemptionFIFRAState Law ClaimsUnanimous Consent RuleRemoval JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
34
Case No. ADJ1 0526898 ADJ1 0626381
Regular
Jul 07, 2017

FERNANDO SANTILLANO vs. VILLA PARK LANDSCAPE, APPLIED RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the Petition for Removal in *Santillano v. Villa Park Landscape*. The WCAB clarified that removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only if substantial prejudice or irreparable harm will result from denial, and reconsideration would not be an adequate remedy. In this case, the WCAB found no persuasive evidence presented by the petitioner to meet these stringent criteria. Therefore, the petition was denied, and the matter will proceed through the normal reconsideration process if necessary.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ ReportExtraordinary RemedyAdverse DecisionFinal DecisionAdministrative Law Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Novie

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Montebello's Tree Preservation and Landscape Maintenance Law, under which a defendant was charged for removing trees without a permit. The defendant challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds including ultra vires, uncompensated taking, due process violations, First Amendment infringement, and equal protection. The Justice Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Tree Law. The court found the law served legitimate governmental purposes, its fees were reasonable, and the defendant's taking and due process claims were not ripe due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Amendment and equal protection challenges were also rejected.

Tree Preservation LawConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLocal OrdinancesZoning Law
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 96 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