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

In re Jason B.

The case involves a petition by the Commissioner of Social Services to adjudicate 9-month-old Jason B. and his two siblings as neglected children. The respondent mother made threats to harm her children, stating she would "take the children with her" and asking "What do I have to do to get help, something stupid like dangling one of my kids over the ferry?". The court found that these threats, coupled with the mother's history of mental illness, including diagnoses of "Schizophrenia with Borderline Features" and "Major Depression, Recurrent with Psychotic Features", established an imminent danger to the children. The court ruled that evidence of present or past harm is not required when a parent exhibits a capacity to carry out serious threats, thereby adjudicating the children neglected. They were continued on remand to the Commissioner of Social Services pending a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectParental ThreatsMental IllnessImminent DangerFamily Court ActChild ProtectionSchizophreniaMajor DepressionPreponderance of EvidenceRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Gallagher ex rel. Gallagher v. Houlihan Lawrence Real Estate

Claimant, the wife of a deceased real estate agent, sought workers' compensation benefits, asserting her husband was an employee of the real estate firm. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Workers’ Compensation Board denied the claim, relying on an independent contractor agreement. On appeal, the court found that the WCLJ prematurely closed the hearing, preventing the claimant from presenting further evidence regarding the employer-employee relationship. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings to fully develop the record on this crucial issue.

Workers' CompensationIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate ReviewRemittalSubstantial EvidenceRight of ControlReal Estate AgentDeath BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Fraczak

This opinion addresses the legal interpretation of "deadly physical force" in the context of second-degree kidnapping under New York Penal Law. The case involves Wladyslaw Fraczak, who held individuals captive at a workers' compensation hearing using a fake grenade and a bag falsely claimed to contain dynamite. The jury found Fraczak "not guilty of kidnapping by reason of insanity." The court examined whether the threat of deadly physical force must be objectively real or subjectively perceived, comparing the kidnapping statute to other statutes where subjective fear is explicitly mentioned. Concluding that the threat must be capable of present realization, the court set aside the jury's verdict for kidnapping and directed a judgment of "not guilty of unlawful imprisonment in the second degree by reason of insanity."

KidnappingUnlawful ImprisonmentDeadly Physical ForceStatutory InterpretationPenal LawInsanity DefenseCriminal LawNew York LawMerger DoctrineSubjective vs Objective Test
References
5
Case No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2009

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Bercosa Corp.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC sued Bercosa Corp. and its owner Pedro Bernard for breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a motion for default judgment. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge John Gleeson adopted, finding the defendants liable. The court awarded Century 21 a total of $319,832.32 in monetary damages, including contract claims, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Additionally, the defendants were permanently enjoined from using the Century 21 Marks and ordered to cooperate in an audit of Bercosa’s books and records.

Default JudgmentTrademark InfringementLanham ActBreach of ContractFranchise AgreementMonetary DamagesInjunctive ReliefAttorneys' FeesAudit OrderWillful Violation
References
66
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00194 [223 AD3d 747]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2024

Ochoa v. JEM Real Estate Co., LLC

Carlos Ochoa, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries after falling from an A-frame ladder while working at a building owned by JEM Real Estate Co., LLC, and leased by Bobwhite Counter, LLC. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted Ochoa's motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law claims. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff established a prima facie case of a defective ladder in violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court also upheld the denial of summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim due to unresolved factual issues regarding Industrial Code violations.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetyConstruction AccidentStatutory ViolationProximate CauseNondelegable Duty
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stetka v. Hunt Real Estate Corp.

Plaintiff Mary Lou Stetka initially filed a pro se action, later amended with counsel, alleging sex discrimination and harassment under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Human Rights Law against Hunt Real Estate. Defendant Hunt Real Estate moved for summary judgment, contending that Stetka was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus not covered by these employment discrimination statutes. The court applied the common law agency test, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, and tax treatment. The court found that Stetka, a licensed real estate agent, worked autonomously, set her own hours, developed her own business, and received commissions without employee benefits or tax deductions, concluding she was an independent contractor. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for Hunt Real Estate on the federal claim and dismissed the pendent state claim due to lack of original jurisdiction.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawIndependent Contractor StatusSummary JudgmentCommon Law Agency TestReal Estate IndustrySexual Harassment ClaimPendent Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers

Judge Edelstein was presented with two orders seeking to show cause why a Grand Jury presentment from October 1952 should not be expunged from court records. The judge declined to sign the orders, asserting that the procedure was not adversarial, as the United States Attorney is not responsible for defending a Grand Jury's presentment. Treating the orders as motions to expunge, Judge Edelstein then denied them without prejudice. He reasoned that granting the motions would require him to exercise appellate jurisdiction over a colleague's actions in the same court, which he refused to do, suggesting renewal of the motions before the original presiding judge.

Grand JuryExpungementJudicial DiscretionAppellate JurisdictionMotions PracticeCourt RecordsPresentmentDistrict Court
References
1
Case No. ADJ9781533
Regular
Aug 02, 2017

Rodolfo Boate vs. Truegreen Landcare, Zurich American Insurance Company

This case involves Rodolfo Boate's workers' compensation claim against Truegreen Landcare and Zurich American Insurance Company for injuries sustained during an altercation with a coworker. The defendant argued the claim was barred because Boate was the initial aggressor, citing his physical advance towards the coworker. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Boate's actions were in reasonable fear of bodily harm due to the coworker's prior severe threats and aggressive behavior. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's credibility determinations, finding no substantial evidence to reject them. Therefore, Boate's injury was deemed industrial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRODOLFO BOATETRUGREEN LANDCAREZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYADJ9781533Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Shenker

The defendants, Shenker and Djavadi, were charged with criminal trespass and obstructing governmental administration after attempting to prevent the City of New York from bulldozing Esperanza Garden on February 15, 2000. They sought to present a justification defense, arguing their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm – the destruction of the garden. The People moved to preclude this defense. Justice Robert M. Stole, presiding over the case, granted the People's motion. The court found that the justification defense under Penal Law § 35.05 (2) was not applicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate an imminent public injury comparable to threats to life or community safety, and did not pursue reasonable legal alternatives during the available time.

Justification DefenseCriminal TrespassObstructing Governmental AdministrationCommunity GardensEnvironmental ProtestPenal Law 35.05Choice of EvilsEmergency MeasureImminent Public InjuryLegal Alternatives
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 4,236 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