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

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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 1994

Quinlan v. Eastern Refractories Co.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 cause of action. The plaintiff, Robert J. Quinlan, was injured when he was knocked off a stepladder by falling boxes, which struck the ladder. The court found that a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) was established as a matter of law because the stepladder was placed in a manner that it could be struck and knocked over by falling material, constituting a failure to provide proper protection. The decision also addressed a third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment, distinguishing between a sole proprietorship and a corporate entity, and reversed the grant of summary judgment to the third-party defendant. The overall order was affirmed as modified.

Labor Law § 240 (1)elevation-related risksafety devicepartial summary judgmentthird-party liabilitycorporate entityproximate causefalling objectstepladder accidentpremises liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc.

Whalen, J., in this dissenting opinion, argues against the majority's decision to reverse a judgment and order a new trial. The dissent contends that the defendant failed to preserve its objection to the jury charge concerning sole proximate cause, specifically regarding the recalcitrant worker defense or an expanded sole proximate cause instruction. Whalen emphasizes that discussions about the verdict sheet do not preserve objections to jury instructions, citing CPLR 4110-b and established case law. Furthermore, the dissenting judge asserts that the jury charge provided (PJI 2:217) was adequate for the sole proximate cause defense and allowed the jury to consider whether the plaintiff's actions were the only substantial factor in causing the injury. The jury's subsequent apportionment of 60% responsibility to the plaintiff also indicated that they did not find the plaintiff to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, Whalen would affirm the original judgment, concluding that the issue of the jury charge was not preserved for review.

Jury ChargeSole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerCPLR 4110-bAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorVerdict SheetEvidentiary RulingLabor LawDissenting Opinion
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Smith v. LSI Lighting Services

A machine operator, referred to as claimant, sustained a head injury and became totally disabled after falling from a platform at work. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim for benefits, accepting the employer's defense that the injury resulted solely from intoxication. Evidence included a 0.218% blood alcohol content and medical records indicating alcohol abuse. The Board concluded that claimant's fall was due to intoxication, thereby overcoming the statutory presumption that the injury was not solely due to intoxication. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the finding that intoxication was the sole cause of the claimant's injury.

Workers' Compensation AppealIntoxication DefenseBlood Alcohol ContentStatutory Presumption RebuttalSole Cause of InjuryAppellate Review StandardSubstantial EvidenceMedical Records EvidenceAlcoholism DiagnosisWorkplace Fall
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Villapol v. American Landmark Management

Claimant, an elevator operator, sustained serious injuries after falling into an empty elevator shaft due to a defective elevator parking device, despite being severely intoxicated. The Workers' Compensation Board granted benefits, finding the injury was not solely caused by intoxication but partly by the defective device. The employer appealed, arguing intoxication was the sole cause. The court affirmed the Board's decision, citing the statutory presumption against intoxication as the sole cause and ample evidence of the defective elevator as a contributing factor. The court also found harmless error in denying claimant's testimony and no abuse of discretion in denying full Board review.

Elevator AccidentIntoxication DefenseDefective EquipmentStatutory PresumptionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionCausationHarmless ErrorFull Board Review Denial
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,394 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