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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1993

Westminster Properties Ltd. v. Teicher

The Supreme Court of New York County affirmed a judgment that dismissed a landlord's complaint. The landlord sought a declaration of access rights to a tenant's premises and damages for alleged denial of access. The trial court's decision, which was based on a Special Referee's finding, concluded that the tenant had not improperly denied the landlord access. The appellate court found that the record substantiated the Referee's findings, specifically noting that the tenant did not prevent workers from removing planters from the terrace and that the required items were eventually removed and the terrace restored.

Landlord-TenantRight of AccessComplaint DismissalJudgment AffirmationSpecial RefereeAppellate ReviewPremises AccessTerraceNew York StateProperty Dispute
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1995

In re Ruben R.

This case concerns an appeal by the Law Guardian and the Commissioner of Social Services against a Family Court decision that allowed press access to child abuse and neglect proceedings involving the surviving siblings of Elisa Izquierdo. The appellants argued that public dissemination of sensitive details would cause irreparable harm to the children, whose identities had already been widely publicized. The Appellate Division reversed the Family Court's decision, emphasizing that the potential trauma to the children, supported by psychological evidence, outweighed the press's interest in free access, especially given the prior media disclosures. The court highlighted the importance of safeguarding children's emotional well-being and privacy in such sensitive proceedings.

Child Protective ProceedingsPress AccessCourtroom ClosurePrivacy Rights of ChildrenChildren's Emotional Well-beingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFirst AmendmentJudiciary LawPsychological Harm
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Liberatore v. Liberatore

The court issued an amended decision and order concerning a child custody dispute within a matrimonial action. The father improperly obtained the notes and records of the child's psychiatrist and clinical psychologist using a HIPAA release, bypassing judicial process. The court ruled that such records, protected by patient/psychotherapist privilege (CPLR 4504, 4507), cannot be disclosed without court order, emphasizing the court's role as parens patriae and the child's best interests. It found that a parent has a conflict of interest in waiving privilege on behalf of a minor child, and that HIPAA does not grant unfettered parental access if state law prohibits it or if a professional deems it not in the child's best interest. Consequently, the court denied access to the records for both parties and their counsel, ordering their return to the providers or destruction by the attorney for the child.

Child CustodyMatrimonial LawPatient-Psychotherapist PrivilegeHIPAAJudicial ProcessParens PatriaeConfidentialityMinor's RightsBest Interests of the ChildTherapy Records
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Access 4 All, Inc. v. Trump International Hotel & Tower Condominium

Plaintiffs Access 4 Al, Inc., a non-profit representing disabled persons, and Peter Spalluto, a quadriplegic using a wheelchair, sued Trump International Hotel and Tower Condominium under Title III of the ADA. They sought a declaratory judgment and an injunction for ADA-mandated alterations, alleging discrimination due to inaccessible facilities during Spalluto's 2004 stay. Defendant moved to dismiss or for summary judgment. The Court found Spalluto demonstrated a plausible intention to return to Trump Tower, establishing his standing. However, the Court dismissed Access 4 Al's claims, finding them identical to Spalluto's and citing prudential limitations on associational standing, while denying the defendant's motion against Spalluto.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAStandingInjunctive ReliefSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAccessibility GuidelinesADAAGQuadriplegiaWheelchair User
References
53
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03703
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2020

Matter of Djukic v. Hanna Andersson, LLC

Claimant Anela Djukic, a sales lead for Hanna Andersson, LLC, slipped and fell inside a shopping mall entrance on her way to work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established her claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for off-premises accidents to be compensable, there must be a special hazard at the location and a close association of the access route with the employment premises. The court found no evidence that the chosen entrance served a business purpose, was controlled by the employer, or presented a risk specifically related to claimant's employment, concluding the wet ground condition was a general danger to any passerby.

off-premises injurygoing and coming rulespecial hazard exceptionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Divisionslip and fallmall entrancecourse of employmentarise out of employmentemployer control
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 1999

Rancano v. Chase Manhattan Bank

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action where a plaintiff sustained injuries from a trip and fall over a step stool in an office corridor. The defendant premises occupant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of notice regarding the hazardous condition. The motion was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County (Harold Tompkins, J.). The appellate court unanimously affirmed this denial, finding that the plaintiff's submissions raised issues of fact concerning the cluttered corridor and whether the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the danger. The court also upheld the consideration of a co-worker's affidavit, which detailed prior complaints about the corridor's condition, as no prejudice or willful disobedience of disclosure obligations was demonstrated by the defendant.

Personal InjuryTrip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionIssue of FactConstructive NoticeActual NoticeCo-worker AffidavitDisclosure DisputeAppellate Affirmance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roman v. Schweiker

The plaintiff, Magdalena Roman, appealed a denial of Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. The case was previously remanded by the District Court to the Secretary of Health and Human Services for a more specific determination regarding whether her physical impairments prevented her from returning to her former work. Subsequently, Roman filed an application for attorney's fees under the Equal Access to Justice Act (EAJA). The Court denied this application, holding that Roman was not a "prevailing party" within the meaning of the EAJA. The Court reasoned that a remand for additional evidence, without a substantive determination on the merits of her disability claim, was not sufficient to establish her as a prevailing party.

Attorney's FeesEqual Access to Justice ActPrevailing PartyRemandSupplemental Security IncomeDisability BenefitsSocial SecurityAppellate PracticeStatutory InterpretationFederal Courts
References
4
Case No. Index No. 510151/20
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 2026

Normile v. DB Ins. Co., Ltd.

This case involves the interpretation of a general liability insurance policy's "Limitation of Coverage to Designated Premises or Project" endorsement. The plaintiff, Catherine Normile, was injured off-premises by an employee of 305 Union St. Station, Inc. (Kittery Restaurant) who was returning from a food delivery. Defendant DB Insurance Co., Ltd. (the insurer) disclaimed coverage, asserting the incident did not occur at the specified covered premises. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the policy's language, which limits coverage to operations "necessary or incidental to those premises," requires a direct premises-based connection, rather than merely an operation incidental to the business itself. Consequently, coverage was deemed inapplicable as the incident did not have the requisite spatial or circumstantial link to the designated premises.

Insurance LawGeneral LiabilityPolicy InterpretationDesignated PremisesOff-premises IncidentFood DeliverySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBodily InjuryCoverage Limitation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 839 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