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
Mar 26, 1971

Maurizio v. Hoberman

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 26, 1971, concerning the rating examination papers of civil service workers. The initial judgment confirmed a Special Referee's report but was subsequently modified. The modification involved remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, with the judgment then affirmed as modified. The court underscored that the duty to establish requirements for promotional examinations lies solely with the respondents, and judicial interference is unwarranted if exercised fairly. Although the respondents did not participate in the appeal, implying agreement with the Special Term's views, the courts reaffirmed their inability to assume the respondents' powers or duties.

Civil ServicePromotional ExaminationExamination PapersJudicial ReviewRemandSupreme CourtReferee ReportAdministrative DiscretionJudicial RestraintNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Paul E. Malecki, an ironworker, was injured when a 2,000-pound bundle of steel fell onto his foot. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200 (1), and common-law negligence against The Pike Company, Inc., the general contractor, and other defendants. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, but denied dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action. The court also denied conditional summary judgment on Pike’s common-law indemnification claim against Niagara Erecting but properly denied conditional summary judgment on Pike's contractual indemnification claim. The appeals court modified the order, affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and further ruled that the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action should also be dismissed, and conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Niagara Erecting should have been granted to Pike. The order was modified accordingly and affirmed.

Ironworker InjuryForklift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation RisksCommon-Law NegligenceIndemnification ClaimGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1995

Garcia v. Bratton

Petitioner, a probationary New York City Police Department officer, was terminated after an investigation into allegations that she failed to take proper police action at a crime scene and cooperate with the ensuing criminal investigation. She had been placed on modified duty for 14 months prior to termination. She challenged her termination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, arguing her probationary period had expired. The IAS Court initially dismissed, then granted her petition upon reargument, ordering reinstatement. This court reversed, holding that Department of Personnel rule 5.2.8 (b) validly extended her probationary period by the time she was on modified duty, as she was not performing regular police duties during that period. Consequently, she was still a probationary employee at the time of termination and not entitled to a hearing, given no showing of bad faith.

Probationary periodPolice officerModified dutyTermination of employmentCPLR article 78New York City Police DepartmentAdministrative lawEmployment lawDue processMisconduct investigation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burke Security, Inc. v. National Union Fire Insurance

The Supreme Court properly granted plaintiffs summary judgment against National Union Fire Insurance Company for excess insurance premiums, affirming that the retention agreement was clear on its face and National Union's time-barred counterclaim for reformation was properly dismissed. However, the Supreme Court incorrectly denied W.H. Brownyard Corporation's cross-motion for summary judgment, despite CPLR 2215 allowing such motions. Brownyard, acting as an insurance broker or agent, proved it passed all premiums to National Union and thus breached no duty to plaintiffs, who received the bargained-for contract. Therefore, Brownyard was not responsible for National Union's contract breach. The appellate order was modified to grant Brownyard's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint against it, while upholding the judgment against National Union.

insurance premiumsretention agreementscrivener's errorstatute of limitationscounterclaimreformationsummary judgmentCPLRappellate reviewbroker liability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1995

Greenwich v. Markhoff

The plaintiff sustained injuries in a 1989 construction accident and retained law firms, Markhoff & Lazarus, and subsequently Scheine, Fusco, Brandenstein & Rada, P. C., to represent his interests. These firms allegedly limited their representation to a Workers’ Compensation claim and failed to initiate a personal injury action against the responsible parties before the Statute of Limitations expired. Consequently, the plaintiff filed a legal malpractice lawsuit against both law firms. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint against Markhoff & Lazarus due to the timing of counsel substitution and the applicable Statute of Limitations for malpractice. However, the dismissal of the claim against Scheine, Fusco, Brandenstein & Rada, P. C. was found to be erroneous, as the action was timely, and the scope of their professional duty was not limited by their retainer agreement. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, reinstating the malpractice claim against Scheine, Fusco, Brandenstein & Rada, P. C., while affirming the dismissal pertaining to Markhoff & Lazarus.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsPersonal Injury ClaimScope of RepresentationRetainer AgreementDismissal of ComplaintReinstatement of ClaimAppellate ReviewProximate CauseActual Damages
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1999

Longo v. Metro-North Commuter RailRoad

A plaintiff, a Metro-North employee with flagging duties on a construction site managed by Yonkers Contracting Company, sustained injuries after falling through a hole. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motion on Labor Law claims and granted Yonkers' cross-motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court reinstated the Labor Law claims against Yonkers, ruling the plaintiff was an integral part of the construction crew entitled to statutory protection. However, the court granted summary judgment to Metro-North, dismissing the plaintiff's Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) claim due to federal preemption. The decision emphasized that Labor Law violations cannot form part of a FELA action.

Workers' CompensationConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law 240Labor Law 241Labor Law 241-aLabor Law 200Federal Employers' Liability ActFederal PreemptionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reilly v. McKilligan Industrial Supply Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Chamonix Industries, Inc., sustained injuries after slipping on a nail within his employer's rented premises, which was located in a building owned by McKilligan Industrial Supply Corporation. The nail was linked to ongoing carpentry work performed by David Mattison, an independent contractor hired by McKilligan. Plaintiff initiated legal action against both Mattison and McKilligan. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to McKilligan, ruling out direct liability, vicarious liability via respondeat superior, and the applicability of Labor Law § 241. On appeal, the order and judgment were modified, reversing the grant of summary judgment against the plaintiff's claim under Labor Law § 241, finding that the statute and related administrative codes (12 NYCRR) do apply to individuals lawfully frequenting construction areas, thus creating a potential duty for the owner.

Construction AccidentPremises LiabilityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 241Statutory InterpretationOwner LiabilityDuty of CareAppellate ReviewTrip and Fall
References
4
Case No. 87 Civ. 8505 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Poling Transportation Corp.

The court addressed a motion by the Long Island Railroad and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (LIRR/MTA) to dismiss their indemnification claims and cross-claims against Poling Transportation Corp., the Motor Vessel Poling Bros. No. 7 (collectively, "Poling"), individual claimants David Theophilous, Antonio Coca, Sylvia Coca, and the "Ditmas Group" or "Porcelli Corporations." The LIRR/MTA sought indemnification, which is not barred by New York General Obligations Law § 15-108, unlike contribution claims. However, the court found that the LIRR/MTA failed to establish a right to either implied contractual or implied in law indemnification, nor could it rely on strict liability statutes like the New York Environmental Conservation Law or Navigation Law to transfer its duty of care. Consequently, the court granted the motion to dismiss the LIRR/MTA's indemnification claims, thereby resolving all claims against Poling, the Ditmas Group, and the individual claimants stemming from the underlying settlement. Additionally, the court denied subsequent motions to vacate its prior orders but granted a motion to modify certain language within those orders.

IndemnificationContributionJoint TortfeasorsSettlement AgreementGeneral Obligations LawImplied IndemnityStrict LiabilityFederal Court ProcedureAdmiralty JurisdictionPendent Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. SDO 0343165
Regular
Nov 21, 2007

ROSARIO ARRIAGA vs. THE EASTRIDGE GROUP, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an employer's petition for reconsideration of an award for temporary disability benefits for an injured assembler. The employer argued the applicant was terminated for good cause unrelated to her injury and that modified duties would have been available. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, upholding the administrative law judge's findings. The Board found the employer failed to present credible evidence of available modified duty and that the applicant's termination was not proven to be for "good cause" based on conflicting testimony.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary Total DisabilityModified DutyTermination for Good CauseIndustrial InjuryNeck InjuryBack InjuryShoulder Injury
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,077 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