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
Nov 02, 1981

Liberty Mutual Insurance v. Newman

Plaintiff insurer, Liberty Mutual Insurance Company, mistakenly paid $9,805.66 to defendant Ruth Newman, intended for an aggregate trust fund related to her deceased husband's workers' compensation benefits. After forwarding the correct payment to the fund, Liberty Mutual sought restitution from Newman, who refused. The Workers' Compensation Board declined to intervene, stating no recourse existed under the Workers' Compensation Law for the error. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to Liberty Mutual. On appeal, the judgment was modified, with the Appellate Division agreeing it was a mistake of fact, not an overpayment of benefits, thus affirming the denial of Newman's summary judgment motion. However, the case was remitted to Special Term for a hearing to determine if ordering full restitution would cause a detrimental change in Newman's position regarding her benefits, and clarified that interest and costs should not be awarded against her.

restitutionmistake of factworkers' compensationsummary judgmentunjust enrichmentdetrimental relianceequityinsurance carrieraggregate trust fundappellate review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. Sam Greco Construction Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. (M & L), suffered serious injuries after sliding off a roof at a construction site while attempting to access safety equipment. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Sam Greco Construction, Inc., and other entities, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, on appeal, the court determined that the safety equipment provided was improperly stored and not adequately placed, constituting a statutory violation that proximately caused the plaintiff's fall. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's actions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, nor did the recalcitrant worker doctrine apply. The judgment was modified, denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leaving only the determination of damages.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineRoofingFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1982

Benjamin v. City of New York

Plaintiffs James Corey Benjamin, Kevin Wiggins, Dorothy Benjamin, June Wiggins, and Robert Wiggins sought damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiffs James, Kevin, and Robert on a city-owned vacant lot in 1974. The infants were severely burned when another youth ignited a flammable substance near a pipe. A jury initially awarded judgments to the plaintiffs and their parents. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Bronx County, reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the defendant, The City, was not negligent, as the intervening acts of the unidentified youth were the proximate cause of the injuries, and the lot's condition was merely the location, not the cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseVacant LotCity LiabilityJury Verdict ReversalComplaint DismissalForeseeabilityInfant InjuriesExplosion Accident
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1991

People v. Hurd

The Supreme Court of New York County rendered a judgment on May 7, 1991, convicting the defendant of murder in the second degree, with a sentence of 22 years to life. This judgment was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The appellate court determined that any potential prejudice arising from the prosecutor's improper statement during summation regarding the voluntariness of the defendant's confession was effectively cured by the trial court's actions. These actions included sustaining the defendant's objection, providing immediate curative instructions, and delivering an extensive charge on confession voluntariness. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecutor's statement was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt, given the overwhelming evidence of the defendant's guilt, which encompassed medical evidence, eyewitness testimony from the victim's granddaughter, and the defendant's own statements.

MurderSecond Degree MurderJury TrialVideotaped ConfessionConfession VoluntarinessProsecutorial MisconductHarmless ErrorCurative InstructionsOverwhelming EvidenceAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ford

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, and an order denying his motion to vacate the said judgment. The appeals court affirmed the order and judgment. Justice Suozzi dissented, arguing that the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney withdrew a crucial alibi defense, despite available witnesses and evidence. The dissent highlighted the trial justice's dissatisfaction with defense counsel's performance and argued that the lower court erred in denying the motion to vacate without a hearing, asserting that the counsel's representation was totally ineffective, rendering the defense meaningless.

Criminal Procedure LawIneffective assistance of counselAlibi defenseRobbery convictionMotion to vacate judgmentAppellate reviewTrial strategyDissenting opinionLegal Aid SocietyCriminal appeal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This opinion addresses a declaratory judgment action brought by Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Corporation (collectively, "the Garden") against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 3"). The Garden sought a declaration that they are not liable to Local 3 for contribution or indemnification concerning a judgment previously entered against Local 3 in antecedent civil rights litigation (Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Anderson v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.). In those prior actions, Local 3 was found liable for intentional discriminatory hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court, presided over by Judge Sand in the Southern District of New York, granted the Garden's motion for summary judgment. The decision ruled that federal law governs, precluding contribution and indemnification under Title VII based on Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers. Furthermore, even if contribution were theoretically available under § 1981, it would not lie for an intentional tortfeasor, and any such claim would be defeated by a release given to the Garden by the original plaintiffs. Indemnity was also denied on similar grounds, emphasizing that an intentional tortfeasor cannot escape liability for deliberate wrongdoing.

Declaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationCivil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationIntentional TortFederal Common Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2010

Paz v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the defendants-respondents' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. This judgment was unanimously affirmed. An appeal from a related order was dismissed as being subsumed within the appeal from the judgment. The court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) liability did not apply as the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, having chosen not to use a provided ladder. Additionally, the Labor Law § 200 claim was dismissed due to the defendants' lack of supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Finally, the Industrial Code provisions cited under Labor Law § 241 (6) were deemed inapplicable to the alleged facts of the case.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Sole Proximate CauseSafety DevicesSupervisory ControlIndustrial CodeScaffold SafetyAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dempsey v. City of Troy

A firefighter, injured in 1965, was placed on disability in 1973. An application for accidental disability retirement benefits was denied due to late notice. In 1983, after being ordered to light duty, the firefighter requested and was approved for retirement. Subsequently, the firefighter sued the employer for negligence in failing to file the accident notice and for improper termination of full salary under General Municipal Law § 207-a. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment for both parties and converted the negligence claim to a declaratory judgment action. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, ruling that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action in negligence and that a material issue of fact regarding the voluntariness of the firefighter's retirement precluded summary judgment on benefits entitlement.

Firefighter DisabilityGeneral Municipal LawRetirement BenefitsSummary Judgment AppealDeclaratory Judgment ConversionNegligence ClaimVoluntary RetirementAccidental Disability RetirementTimely NoticeLight Duty Assignment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 8,960 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