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

Spears v. State

The claimant, a dump truck driver, suffered injuries from a fall while repairing his truck at a highway renovation site for the defendant, State of New York. The claimant sought partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Court of Claims denied the motion and dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, ruling that a highway is not a 'building or structure' under the law, thus the State had no duty. The court also noted the State did not own or contract for the repair of the dump truck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, concurring that Labor Law § 240 (1) does not apply to owners of highways under repair.

Highway ConstructionLabor LawFall from HeightElevation RiskSummary Judgment DenialOwner LiabilityDefinition of StructureAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury ClaimNew York State
References
8
Case No. CA 12-00739
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2012

KIN, SUMMER v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Summer Kin, a claimant, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder during a bridge reconstruction project. She filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against the State of New York, her employer's client and the property owner. The Court of Claims initially denied Kin's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and partially granted the State's cross-motion, dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Kin's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), determining that the ladder provided improper protection and the State failed to demonstrate Kin's conduct as the sole proximate cause. The court also granted the State's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, finding the cited Industrial Code provisions (12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (b) (4) (iv) and 23-1.21 (a)) inapplicable or insufficiently specific. Kin had abandoned contentions regarding common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallLabor LawNew YorkAppellate DivisionSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityWorker SafetyStatutory Violation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1984

Pastoriza v. State

Tomas Pastoriza, a carpenter employed by Yonkers Contracting Corporation, died after falling 41 feet at a jobsite. His estate moved for summary judgment against defendant New York State, alleging Labor Law violations for failure to provide safety equipment. The Court of Claims initially granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 and denied the State's cross-motion to dismiss. However, the appellate court modified this order, denying the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing inadmissible evidence from a co-worker's affidavit and insufficient detail regarding the accident circumstances to prove a Labor Law violation. The appellate court otherwise affirmed the denial of the State's cross-motion, granting the defendant an opportunity to depose witnesses.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Safety EquipmentAdmissible EvidenceProximate CauseAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03888 [195 AD3d 1270]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2021

Matter of Spence v. State Univ. of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal concerning a salary increase for nurses at Stony Brook University Hospital, initiated by the State University of New York. Petitioners, including Wayne Spence and the New York State Public Employees Federation, argued that the salary adjustments violated Education Law and Civil Service Law due to an inadequate study, and Executive Law and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act due to disparate impact on older nurses. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding the study sufficient and the age discrimination claims procedurally deficient. The Appellate Division affirmed this dismissal, concluding that the study was representative, the nonuniform pay differential was permissible under Education Law, and the age discrimination claims failed because petitioners did not file with the EEOC and the pay adjustments were based on a legitimate non-age factor.

Wage ratesPay differentialsNurse salariesAge discriminationCPLR article 78State University of New YorkPublic Employees FederationStony Brook University HospitalEducation Law § 355-aCivil Service Law § 130
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

Brown v. State

A claimant, formerly a supervisor, initiated legal action against the State of New York and four individual state employees, asserting claims under the State Human Rights Law and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claimant alleged persistent verbal and sexual harassment by a co-worker, Albert Morelli, and further contended that supervisors failed to intervene, leading to her alleged retaliatory "constructive termination" in October 1983. The Court of Claims dismissed the actions against the individual employees and the emotional distress claim but permitted the Human Rights Law cause of action, rejecting the State's defenses based on the Statute of Limitations and election of remedies. On cross appeals, the higher court affirmed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, citing public policy against such suits for official conduct, and upheld the finding that the Human Rights Law claim was not time-barred or precluded by election of remedies.

Sexual harassmentVerbal harassmentRetaliationHuman Rights LawIntentional infliction of emotional distressConstructive terminationStatute of LimitationsElection of remediesRespondeat superiorPublic policy defense
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01453 [159 AD3d 674]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2018

Grasso v. New York State Thruway Auth.

This case involves four consolidated personal injury claims filed by Jerry A. Grasso, Jr., John Sullivan, Jr., Cathy Marl, and Louis Centolanza against the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA). The claimants alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, stemming from injuries sustained during a highway construction project. The Court of Claims initially granted NYSTA's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims based on collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) and for punitive damages, finding collateral estoppel applicable and punitive damages barred by sovereign immunity. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by denying the dismissal of claims alleging Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, concluding that collateral estoppel did not apply to NYSTA as a property owner and that NYSTA acted in a proprietary capacity, thus subject to tort liability.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Common-law NegligenceCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityGovernmental Function ImmunityProprietary FunctionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site Accident
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 1996

Labodin v. State

The appellate court affirmed an order from the Court of Claims that granted the claimants' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The defendant, the State of New York, had appealed this order. The court reiterated that Labor Law § 240 (1) mandates the provision of safe scaffolding and other protective devices for workers. The claimants, notably Viktor Labodin, presented evidentiary proof that the State failed to provide proper protection, directly causing injuries. The State's opposition was found to be unavailing, failing to raise a genuine issue of fact. The decision emphasized that once a failure to provide necessary safety devices is established, absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) applies, irrespective of any contributory negligence.

Personal InjuryLabor LawScaffoldingWorker SafetyAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseCourt of ClaimsContributory Negligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital

A proceeding was initiated by the State Division of Human Rights to enforce an order against Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital. The hospital had discriminated against a female employee by denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disability, despite being a self-insured employer providing benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The State Division's order, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, directed the hospital to pay benefits, furnish proof, and establish a nondiscrimination policy. The hospital failed to comply, leading to this enforcement action almost two years after the Appeal Board's order. The court granted the petition for enforcement, denied the hospital's cross-motion, found the enforcement proceeding timely and not barred by laches, and affirmed that the original discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy Disability BenefitsEnforcement ProceedingHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation LawTimelinessLachesSubstantial EvidenceEmployer DiscriminationDisability Benefits Denial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fraternal Order of Police, National Labor Council, USPS No. 2 v. United States Postal Service

The Fraternal Order of Police (FOP) and 13 individual Postal Police Officers sued the United States Postal Service and its employees, alleging violations of federal and state law, as well as their employment contract. Plaintiffs challenged restrictions on their law enforcement authority, citing 40 U.S.C. § 318, and also claimed illegal locker searches under the Fourth Amendment and New York law. The defendants sought dismissal, primarily arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the claims. It ruled that Section 318 does not confer a private right of action and that the plaintiffs failed to exhaust the grievance procedures outlined in their collective bargaining agreement and the Postal Reorganization Act for their search and contract-related claims.

Labor LawPostal ServicePolice PowersFourth AmendmentLocker SearchCollective Bargaining AgreementExhaustion of RemediesPrivate Right of ActionSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss
References
51
Case No. No. 78 Civ. 2541-CSH
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 1987

Hannahs v. NY STATE TEACHERS'RET. SYSTEM

Plaintiff Bessie Hannahs, a retired teacher, challenged the use of sex-differentiated actuarial tables by the New York State Teachers' Retirement System (NYSTRS) to calculate retirement benefits, alleging discrimination. The defendants moved for summary judgment, citing intervening Supreme Court authority in Norris and subsequent Second Circuit rulings in Spirt II. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants, finding that Norris precluded retroactive relief due to the financial burden on the guaranteed annuity plan. The court also determined that NYSTRS's post-Norris implementation, which involved using merged gender mortality tables ("midpointing") for contributions made after August 1, 1983, complied with federal law, rejecting the plaintiff's argument for "topping up" benefits and any state law considerations that would mandate it.

Retirement BenefitsActuarial TablesGender DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentProspective ReliefRetroactive ReliefMidpointingTopping UpPension Plans
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 19,658 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