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

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05850
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 2025

People v. Flanigan

Defendant Razeah S. Flanigan appealed convictions for assault in the second degree and reckless endangerment in the second degree, stemming from an incident where he fired a flare gun, injuring the victim's arm. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the weight of the evidence for the assault conviction, concluding that the victim suffered a serious physical injury due to disfigurement and protracted impairment. The court affirmed the assault conviction but found that reckless endangerment in the second degree was an erroneous lesser included offense of assault in the first degree, though harmless as it was a proper lesser included offense of another count. Ultimately, the court determined that reckless endangerment in the second degree was a lesser included offense of assault in the second degree, leading to the dismissal of the reckless endangerment conviction. The judgment was modified to dismiss the conviction on count 3 and affirmed as modified.

Assault Second DegreeReckless EndangermentSerious Physical InjuryLesser Included OffenseFlare Gun InjuryCriminal Weapon PossessionJustification DefenseWeight of Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionConviction Modification
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alex Irrizarry Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

Plaintiff Alex Irrizarry Deleon sued New York City, its Department of Sanitation, and employee Robert R Falcaro for personal injuries after Falcaro's street sweeper collided with Deleon's vehicle. The core legal dispute involved whether an ordinary negligence standard or a reckless disregard standard applied to the sanitation worker's actions. The court clarified that the reckless disregard standard, as per Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) and 34 RCNY 4-02 (d) (1) (iv), applied because Falcaro was engaged in highway maintenance. Despite this, the court concluded that material issues of fact remained regarding Falcaro's recklessness and Deleon's own negligence, preventing summary judgment for the defendants. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order, which denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, was affirmed, and the certified question was answered in the affirmative.

Street Sweeper AccidentPersonal InjuryReckless Disregard StandardOrdinary Negligence StandardSummary JudgmentVehicle and Traffic LawMunicipal LiabilityRules of the City of New YorkProximate CauseContributory Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Reagan

This document presents a dissenting opinion regarding the dismissal of manslaughter and reckless endangerment charges against defendants Roger Reagan, Jr., Westar Mechanical, Inc., and 5L Enterprises, Inc. The charges stem from an incident where two workers drowned during a trench collapse at an excavation site. The County Court had dismissed these counts, citing insufficient evidence of recklessness. Judge O’Brien, in dissent, argues that the evidence presented to the Grand Jury was legally sufficient to establish that the defendants were aware of and consciously disregarded substantial risks, constituting a gross deviation from reasonable conduct. The dissent emphasizes the defendants' knowledge of trench instability and a pressurized sprinkler pipe, along with their failure to implement required safety measures like shoring, and concludes that the deaths were a foreseeable outcome of their reckless actions. Therefore, the dissenting judges advocate for reversing the dismissal order and reinstating the indictment counts.

Criminal NegligenceManslaughter Second DegreeReckless Endangerment Second DegreeTrench Collapse FatalityOSHA ViolationsSufficiency of Grand Jury EvidenceRecklessness StandardCorporate Criminal LiabilityForeseeable RiskIndictment Reinstatement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Perniciaro

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, convicting him of reckless endangerment in the second degree and harassment after a nonjury trial. The appellate court modified the judgment, reversing the conviction of harassment and vacating the sentence imposed on it. The harassment count of the indictment was dismissed because the complainant failed to identify which of five individuals, including the defendant, made the threats, and the crime of harassment was not proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The judgment was affirmed as modified regarding the reckless endangerment conviction.

Appellate ReviewReckless EndangermentHarassmentCriminal ConvictionNonjury TrialJudgment ModificationEvidence InsufficiencyReasonable DoubtDismissal of ChargesNew York Law
References
2
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05788, 187 AD3d 953
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2020

Rascelles v. State of New York

The claimant, Scott L. Rascelles, sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a collision between his moped and a New York State Department of Transportation dump truck. The Court of Claims initially found the State 100% liable, concluding the DOT workers exhibited 'reckless disregard' under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this judgment, finding the evidence insufficient to establish reckless disregard, even while accepting the lower court's factual findings. Consequently, the claim against the State was dismissed, and Rascelles' cross-appeal was also dismissed as he was not an aggrieved party.

Personal InjuryMoped AccidentState VehicleReckless DisregardVehicle and Traffic Law § 1103(b)Appellate DivisionCourt of ClaimsLiability DeterminationJudgment ReversalClaim Dismissal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2003

People v. Swinton

The defendants appealed their convictions for assault, reckless endangerment, and endangering the welfare of a child, stemming from their strict vegetarian diet provided to their infant daughter, which led to severe malnutrition. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially convicted them. On appeal, the higher court modified the judgments by vacating the reckless endangerment conviction, deeming it a lesser-included offense of assault, but affirmed the assault and child endangerment convictions. A dissenting opinion argued for the reversal of the assault convictions, contending that the evidence did not sufficiently prove the defendants' conscious disregard of risks, but rather misguided parental beliefs. The majority, however, found the evidence legally sufficient for the remaining charges.

Criminal LawAppealChild EndangermentMalnutritionAssault First DegreeReckless Endangerment First DegreeLesser-Included OffenseParental NeglectDietary PracticesWeight of Evidence
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York City Asbestos Litig.

Mario Maltese and Savino Stallone, mechanics at Con Edison, contracted mesothelioma due to asbestos exposure from turbines sold by Westinghouse Corporation. Their estates and Stallone's wife sued multiple defendants, including Westinghouse, with a jury finding Westinghouse 20% liable. The jury also found Westinghouse demonstrated reckless disregard for safety and assessed punitive damages, but the trial court set these findings aside. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, and the higher court agreed, finding insufficient evidence for reckless disregard based on a gross negligence standard. The court concluded that Westinghouse's general awareness of asbestos risks wasn't enough to prove they knew Maltese or Stallone were at risk at a time they could have warned them.

MesotheliomaAsbestos exposureProduct liabilityReckless disregardPunitive damagesGross negligence standardJury verdictAppellate reviewCon EdisonWestinghouse Corporation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anayansi Blanchard v. Integrated Food Systems

Claimant, a 16-year-old, was shot during an armed robbery at her drive-thru window job after her supervisor allegedly kept her working past lawful hours. She contended that her employer intentionally and recklessly placed her in mortal peril, seeking to have her claim placed outside the exclusive liability limitations of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, and the employer's act of requiring her to work past lawful hours for minors did not constitute an exception to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was no evidence of willful intent to harm the claimant, even if the supervisor's conduct amounted to gross negligence or recklessness.

Workers' CompensationExclusive LiabilityIntentional TortEmployer NegligenceMinor EmploymentArmed RobberySupervisor ConductGross NegligenceRecklessnessWillful Intent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Puma

A defendant's van caused an accident with an 18-wheel tractor-trailer, striking and killing a highway worker. Evidence showed the defendant's speech was slurred, and a blood test revealed cocaine, methadone, and opiates, impairing his ability to react normally. The Grand Jury indicted the defendant for manslaughter, reckless driving, and other charges. The lower court dismissed several counts in the indictment, specifically counts one, two, four, five, and six, retaining counts three, seven, and eight. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating counts one (manslaughter in the second degree, reduced to criminally negligent homicide) and two (reckless driving) because the evidence was legally sufficient to establish a prima facie case.

Criminal LawManslaughterReckless DrivingDriving While Impaired by DrugsCriminally Negligent HomicideGrand Jury IndictmentAppellate ReviewSufficiency of EvidenceVehicle and Traffic LawPenal Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 85 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