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

Barksdale v. Robinson

Darryll Barksdale filed an action against Morgan C. Robinson (and related entities) and Spirit Music Group (and affiliate) concerning copyright ownership and infringement of musical compositions 'Rockin It' and 'It's Magic.' Barksdale sought a declaration of sole ownership, which Robinson disputed, claiming co-authorship. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the claims were time-barred. The court converted the motion to summary judgment, subsequently granting it. It ruled that Barksdale's copyright ownership claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, as he knew of Robinson's claims by August 1998 but filed suit in December 2001. Consequently, the infringement claims, contingent on sole ownership, also failed. The court dismissed the Lanham Act claims for merely reiterating copyright disputes and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, thereby dismissing the entire case.

CopyrightMusic IndustryStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentCopyright InfringementCo-ownershipLanham ActEquitable EstoppelDismissalFederal Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soles v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Dana Soles, an employee of Christa Construction, Inc., sustained a back injury on July 20, 1990, while manually carrying a 600-pound door frame up a building staircase at Kodak Park. He sued site owner Eastman Kodak Company under Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, alleging permanent disability due to the lack of safety devices. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing Soles' claims. The court found that Soles' injury did not involve a fall or being struck by a falling object, thus precluding liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Furthermore, the claims under Labor Law § 241(6) were dismissed because the cited Industrial Code sections were either too general or irrelevant to the accident's cause, and Labor Law § 200(1) claims failed due to a lack of evidence regarding Eastman Kodak Company's notice or supervisory control over the work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200 (1)Summary JudgmentGravity-related hazardMaterial hoistSupervisory authorityConstruction accidentWorkplace injuryThird-party action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1992

In re Rebecca B.

This case involves an appeal of a Family Court order that denied a father's motion to transfer sole legal custody of his daughter from the mother to him. The Appellate Division modified the original order, granting the transfer of sole legal custody to the appellant father with liberal visitation rights for the respondent mother. The decision was influenced by expert testimony from a clinical director, another psychiatrist, and a social worker, all recommending a custody change due to the mother's punitive disciplinary methods and attempts to exclude the father. The court also considered the child's preference to live with her father, deeming the trial court's initial decision to lack a sound and substantial basis in the record.

Child CustodyFamily LawCustody TransferParental RightsBest Interest of the ChildExpert TestimonyParental AlienationVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evans v. Citicorp

In a personal injury action, a building maintenance worker sued the building's owner and sole tenant after slipping on snow and ice on the roof. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the tenant and denied it to the owner, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for further disclosure. On appeal, the order was unanimously modified. The action was dismissed against the tenant, finding the plaintiff was its special employee. The owner's motion for summary judgment was also granted, as the out-of-possession landlord was not responsible for general maintenance or snow removal, which was the tenant's sole responsibility, and the cause of the fall was not a structural defect.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeOut-of-Possession LandlordSnow and IceBuilding MaintenanceAppellate ReviewEmployer ResponsibilityTenant Responsibility
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2008

Julia C. v. Phoebe L.

This case involves an appeal from an Order of the Family Court, New York County, which denied a respondent mother’s petition for sole custody of her child. Instead, sole custody was awarded to the paternal grandmother, Phoebe L., after a hearing. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, citing the best interests of the child and the totality of the circumstances, including testimony that the grandmother provided a supportive, structured, stable, and loving home environment. The court noted that even though the petitioner was a fit mother, she had not personally provided day-to-day care for the child.

Child CustodyFamily LawPaternal GrandmotherBest Interests of ChildSole CustodyAppellate DivisionCustody HearingParental FitnessDay-to-day CareStable Home Environment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenburg v. Angiuli Buick, Inc.

Howard Rosenburg was injured in a slip and fall accident on premises owned by Angiuli Buick, Inc., receiving workers' compensation from his employer, Angiuli Dodge, Inc. Both corporations were solely owned and operated by Sam Angiuli and shared the same business address. Rosenburg sued Angiuli Buick, Inc. for personal injuries, but the Supreme Court granted summary judgment, asserting that common ownership shielded the defendant from liability under the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that Angiuli Buick, Inc. was a separate legal entity from Angiuli Dodge, Inc. Consequently, Angiuli Buick, Inc. was not immune to tort liability despite the common ownership, and the plaintiffs' personal injury claim was reinstated.

Personal InjurySlip and FallWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentCorporate VeilSeparate Legal EntityTort LiabilityAppellate ReviewCommon OwnershipEmployer Liability
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00654 [179 AD3d 1414]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Puli-Lopez v. Triple 888 Dev. Group LLC

Milton Puli-Lopez, a construction laborer, filed a workers' compensation claim after sustaining injuries, identifying Triple 888 Development Group LLC as his employer. The Workers' Compensation Board modified an earlier WCLJ decision, concluding that Puli-Lopez was solely employed by Triple 888 Development Group LLC and that no general/special employment relationship existed with East 119th Street Development LLC, despite shared ownership and property management. Triple 888 and East 119th appealed the Board's decision, arguing that the claimant's application for review was incomplete and that the WCLJ's findings were supported by evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in reviewing the claimant's application and concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's determination regarding sole employment.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipGeneral/Special EmployerConstruction InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceEmployer LiabilityAdministrative ProcedureRegulatory Compliance
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Thayer Lake LLC v. Brown

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's conclusion that the Mud Pond Waterway does not meet the navigable-in-fact test under common law. The dissent highlights the waterway's physical characteristics, including its shallowness, narrowness, impassable rapids, and dense vegetation, asserting these features render it impractical for common public use as a highway for travel or transport. It emphasizes that despite recent public access opportunities via the Lila Traverse and its potential for recreational canoeing, the waterway lacks the practical utility for general public or commercial purposes. The opinion also notes the historical private ownership and use, contrasting it with the stringent New York common law standard for navigability, which prioritizes commercial utility over recreational use alone. Ultimately, the dissent warns against expanding the navigability-in-fact doctrine, which could destabilize private property ownership by opening remote, privately owned bodies of water based solely on arduous public access.

Waterway NavigabilityCommon LawDissenting OpinionPublic EasementPrivate PropertyRecreational UseCommercial TransportNew York LawMud Pond WaterwayLila Traverse
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves appeals from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding the employment status of a decedent. The decedent, a staff physician at Bellevue Hospital, was murdered. Her husband, the claimant, filed a wrongful death action against New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (NYCHHC), which operated Bellevue. NYCHHC argued it was the decedent's special employer, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board determined that New York University Medical Center (NYU) was the decedent's sole employer. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, citing substantial evidence that NYU provided all professional services at Bellevue, employed and supervised the physicians, and controlled the details of their work, even though NYCHHC had general hospital oversight. The court reiterated that when evidence supports both general and special employment, the ultimate determination is a question of fact for the Board, and its decision stands if supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' Compensation Board AppealSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityWrongful Death ActionPhysician EmploymentHospital Affiliation AgreementSubstantial EvidenceQuestion of FactJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fonda v. Norton Co.

Claimant suffered serious injuries to his right leg, hip, and spine in February 1988, necessitating two laminectomies for a herniated disc. The employer and its insurer challenged the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination that the claimant's permanent disability resulted solely from his back injury, arguing that a preexisting dormant heart condition contributed. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant's disability was not materially or substantially greater due to the heart condition. The Board's prerogative to resolve conflicting medical opinions was upheld. Furthermore, the court found the employer's argument regarding a contractually based reimbursement claim could not be raised for the first time on appeal, as it was not addressed administratively.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryPreexisting ConditionHeart ConditionDisabilityLaminectomyCausationMedical EvidenceFactual DisputeAppellate Review
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,520 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