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

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2011

Brooklyn Heights Ass'n Inc. v. National Park Service

The plaintiffs (Brooklyn Heights Association, Inc. et al.) filed an action against defendants (National Park Service et al.) seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent alleged violations of federal and state law, specifically regarding the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). The dispute centered on the National Park Service's (NPS) 2008 and 2011 decisions to revise the "6(f)(3) boundary map" for Empire Fulton Ferry State Park, which excluded the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores. Plaintiffs argued these revisions, made under the guise of correcting a "mistake," were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to LWCFA statutes and regulations, which mandate a conversion process for such changes after a grant closes. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the administrative record belied any claim of original mistake and that NPS lacked inherent authority to bypass the required conversion procedures. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, setting aside NPS's decisions, restoring the original boundary map, and enjoining any drilling or construction on the affected structures during the litigation.

Land and Water Conservation Fund ActPreliminary InjunctionAdministrative Procedure ActNational Park ServiceEnvironmental LawHistoric PreservationFederal RegulationsPublic Land UseStatutory InterpretationAgency Action Review
References
38
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04941 [208 AD3d 412]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2022

Ruisech v. Structure Tone Inc.

This personal injury action arises from a construction site accident where plaintiff, an A-Val Architectural Metal III, LLC employee, slipped on pebbles. The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to several defendants (Park, CBRE, and Structure Tone Inc.) on claims related to Labor Law §§ 241(6) and 200, and common-law negligence. The court determined that the Industrial Code regulations cited were inapplicable and that the defendants lacked supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Additionally, the court ruled on various contractual indemnification claims, finding certain indemnification clauses enforceable while others were not due to ambiguity or lack of negligence.

Construction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon Law NegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03584
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Smith v. Park

Alex K. Smith, a 14-year-old, died in a skid steer accident at Park Family Farm. His mother, Vicky S.T. Smith, as administrator, filed a claim for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, finding the decedent an illegally employed minor. The claimant challenged this, arguing the employer was uninsured. The Workers' Compensation Board confirmed coverage by the State Insurance Fund and increased the death benefit award to $100,000 under double indemnity provisions, with Park Family Farm solely responsible for the increased amount due to illegal employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, stating that a change in partnership composition did not invalidate the insurance policy.

Illegal EmploymentMinor Employee DeathWorkers' Compensation Death BenefitsInsurance Policy ValidityPartnership ChangeEmployer LiabilityDouble IndemnityAppellate ReviewFarm AccidentSkid Steer Accident
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07467 [176 AD3d 1362]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of Molina v. Icon Parking LLC

This case concerns the calculation of an employee's average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits. Claimant Ramon Guerra Molina sustained injuries while working as a parking lot attendant for Icon Parking LLC. The Workers' Compensation Board initially established his average weekly wage using Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3), which resulted in a lower wage. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that the Board failed to explain why Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (2) could not be "reasonably and fairly applied" before resorting to § 14 (3). The court remitted the matter back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings, including the submission of payroll records for similar employees, to determine the appropriate method for calculating the average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageWage CalculationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewRemittalPayroll RecordsParking Lot AttendantStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05005 [231 AD3d 1248]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Park (Commissioner of Labor)

Miyoung Park appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled she was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to not being totally unemployed. After being separated from her primary employment due to COVID-19, Park applied for benefits with her daughter's help, certifying she did not work. However, she was working part-time as a home care worker. The Department of Labor found her ineligible, charged her with recoverable overpayment, and imposed penalties for willful false statements. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Park was not totally unemployed and was responsible for accurate reporting.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsEligibilityTotal UnemploymentFalse StatementsOverpayment of BenefitsWillful MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewCOVID-19 PandemicHome Care WorkerAdministrative Law Judge Decision
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00229 [168 AD3d 491]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2019

Sanchez v. 404 Park Partners, LP

Luis Sanchez, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an uncovered floor opening at a work site. He moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against the property owner, 404 Park Partners, LP, the general contractor, Sciame Construction, LLC, and subcontractor Cord Contracting Co. Inc., which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the liability findings against these parties, noting the owner and general contractor's statutory duties and the subcontractor's delegated duty to cover floor openings. Additionally, the court modified the lower court's indemnification rulings. It granted conditional full contractual indemnification to Sciame from United Air Conditioning Corp. II and conditional contractual indemnification to 404 Park and Sciame from Cord, contingent on the extent of their respective negligence, while also preserving factual issues concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Sciame.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationsProximate Cause
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 776 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