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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02559
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2022

Ortega v. Panther Siding & Windows, Inc.

The plaintiff Rene Ortega was injured after falling from a roof while working as a foreman for a subcontractor, Golden Hammer Construction Group, Corp., which was working for Panther Siding & Windows, Inc. Ortega sued Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision. The court found that Panther Siding & Windows, Inc., established it was neither the general contractor nor an agent of the owner at the accident site, thus lacking the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1), and Ortega failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjuryFall from heightLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilitySubcontractorConstruction AccidentElevation-related riskSafety devices
References
4
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05085
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2020

Wein v. East Side 11th & 28th, LLC

Shane Wein and his wife initiated an action against East Side 11th & 28th, LLC, and SBF Construction, Inc., seeking damages for personal injuries sustained by Mr. Wein during the assembly of a tower crane at a construction site. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order was subsequently appealed by both parties. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (f) (2) (i). Conversely, it granted the defendants' cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-8.1 (f) (1) (iv) and 23-8.2 (c) (3), and the Labor Law § 200 claim against SBF Construction, Inc., as modified, the order was affirmed.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentHoist OperationStatutory ViolationAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyNegligenceComparative Negligence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zlateff v. Contour Erection & Siding Systems, Inc.

Daniel Zlateff, president and sole shareholder of Z-Boing, Inc., was injured while bungee jumping during an exhibition event. The crane for the event was provided by Contour Erection & Siding Systems, Inc., and the event was planned by Zlateff, Linda Monforte, and Christopher Eberle. Monforte owned the property where the event occurred and also managed Erie Shores, Inc., which operated Calico Jack’s Restaurant. Eberle was the president of Contour. The Supreme Court had previously granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating the complaint, citing material issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. These issues include the existence and identity of a joint venture, the availability of workers’ compensation coverage, and whether Zlateff was an employee or acting independently to further his own business.

Bungee Jumping AccidentSummary Judgment AppealJoint Venture DisputeWorkers' Compensation CoverageEmployment StatusPersonal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityCorporate LiabilityAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bromley v. Rich Aluminum & Vinyl Siding, Inc.

Claimant, a sales manager for a vinyl siding company, allegedly injured his left knee in 2001 while inspecting a customer's roof. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed his claim, citing lack of credibility, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board in April 2003. No appeal was taken from that initial Board decision. Claimant subsequently applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review of the April 2003 decision, which was denied in May 2004. This appeal was limited to reviewing the denial of the application for reconsideration, not the merits of the underlying 2003 Board decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding it was not arbitrary or capricious, as the Board had discretion to reject a coworker's recanted affidavit as not credible.

Appellate ReviewReconsideration DenialBoard ReviewCredibility AssessmentAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentJudicial DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousRecanted Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyers v. Epstein

This case concerns a motion in limine filed by the plaintiffs, Samara Meyers and her parents, in a 'ghost surgery' case. The plaintiffs allege that a different surgeon, Dr. Ira Richmond Abbott, performed brain surgery on Samara than the one they consented to, Dr. Fred Epstein. Following the surgery, Samara experienced severe complications including left side paralysis and cognitive impairments. The plaintiffs sought to recover damages for these complications, arguing that they were proximately caused by the unauthorized surgery. However, the court denied their motion, ruling that under New York law, a plaintiff cannot recover for injuries that would have foreseeably resulted from the surgery even if performed by the consented doctor, especially without evidence of negligent performance. The court limited potential recovery to nominal damages and mental anguish for the unauthorized act itself, not the inherent risks or consequences of the surgery.

Ghost surgeryBatteryMedical malpracticeInformed consentCausationDamagesMotion in limineBrain surgery complicationsProximate causeIntentional torts
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Sweet

A claimant, formerly a sewage treatment worker for a municipality, left his job and moved to Hawaii after receiving a conditional job offer at a tropical fish farm and his girlfriend's relocation there. Upon arrival, he discovered the position was no longer available. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, determining he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to verify the job offer before moving and had primarily relocated for personal reasons without definite employment.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood cause for leavingJob availabilityRelocation for personal reasonsDisqualification for benefitsAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceMunicipality employmentHawaii job offer
References
0
Case No. ADJ2930104 (RIV 0061967)
Regular
Jan 19, 2017

LEONARDO NUNGARAY vs. REMEDIATION CONSTRUCTORS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision concerning applicant Leonardo Nungaray's claim. The Board found that the initial Utilization Review (UR) determination erroneously characterized the applicant's requested treatment for a left-sided epidural injection as a right-sided procedure. This fundamental error in the UR process, not the Independent Medical Review (IMR), requires further examination. Consequently, the case is returned to the trial level to determine if the UR was timely and if the judge has jurisdiction over the medical necessity dispute.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationPlainly Erroneous Finding of FactRadiculopathyRequest for AuthorizationEpidural InjectionTreating PhysicianUtilization ReviewMedical Treatment Guidelines
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 1987

Claim of Ferguson v. Fruehauf Corp.

The claimant sustained a left knee injury at work on January 29, 1982, which progressively led to severe disability, including complete paralysis and loss of use of the left leg and hip. The employer's workers' compensation insurance carrier, C.N.A. Insurance Company, initially paid total disability benefits but later objected to their continuation. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the order for the carrier to continue payments, finding substantial evidence to support causal relationship and total disability. The Board also determined that the claimant's refusal to undergo an examination by a specific neurological consultant was reasonable due to a family malpractice claim against that physician.

Medical TestimonyCausal RelationshipDisability BenefitsMedical Examination RefusalAppealsBoard DecisionsNeurological InjuryOrthopedic InjuryEmployer LiabilityInsurance Carrier
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gandley v. Prestige Roofing & Siding Co.

The plaintiff appealed orders denying his motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). He suffered severe injuries after falling through a skylight on a roof owned by South Huntington Union Free School District while employed by Thermotest, Inc. The defendants, Prestige Roofing & Siding Co. and South Huntington Union Free School District, were aware of a prior similar incident but failed to provide adequate safety devices. The court affirmed that Labor Law § 240 (1) imposes absolute liability on owners and contractors for such failures, and contributory negligence is not a defense. Consequently, the Supreme Court's denial of the plaintiff's motion was reversed, and his motion for partial summary judgment on liability was granted.

Personal InjuryLabor LawWorkplace AccidentSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilitySkylight FallConstruction SafetyProximate CauseContributory NegligenceAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,142 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