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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00602
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2021

Matter of Storms v. BOCES Erie No. 1

Claimant Michael Storms sustained work-related injuries, and his employer, Boces Erie No. 1, continued wage payments during his disability. The employer, however, failed to file a timely request for reimbursement of these wages. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially credited the employer for wages paid, but the claimant disputed this entitlement. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently modified the decision, ruling that the employer had waived its right to reimbursement due to the untimely filing. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that formal requests are necessary and a belated oral reference was insufficient.

Workers' CompensationReimbursementWage PaymentsTimelinessAppellate ReviewWCLJ DecisionBoard ModificationWaiver of RightsDisability BenefitsEmployer Obligation
References
9
Case No. 01 Civ. 94(WHP)
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Fire Insurance v. Novocargo USA Inc.

In this multi-party admiralty action, plaintiffs Hartford Fire Insurance Co., Viva Trade Corporation, and International Furniture Sales Inc. sought damages for a shipment of furniture. The cargo was damaged during a storm at sea when an aircraft tow tractor fell onto its container, and suffered further damage post-discharge due to exposure and negligent devanning. The court found Novocargo USA Inc. and Senator Lines GmbH jointly and severally liable for 57% of the total damage, caused by the pre-discharge incident. Global Terminal & Container Services, Inc. was found directly liable to plaintiffs for 43% of the total damage, attributable to post-discharge events. The court also ruled that Novocargo is entitled to full indemnity from Senator, and Senator is entitled to full indemnity from United Arab Shipping Co., while determining damages based on the furniture's resale value and awarding pre-judgment interest.

Admiralty LawCargo DamageJoint and Several LiabilityIndemnityCOGSAHarter ActNVOCCStevedore NegligenceSubrogated InsurerFreight
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ebrahimian v. Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance

The case involves homeowners Moosa and Sheila Ebrahimian suing Nationwide Mutual Fire Insurance Company for breach of contract and bad faith regarding a storm damage claim to their residence. The dispute centered on coverage for repair costs, additional living expenses, and damages from vermin. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, granted the motion in part, dismissing claims for undocumented additional living expenses, construction expenses to bring the home to code, vermin-related expenses, bad faith, and punitive/special damages. The court denied summary judgment on other aspects of the breach of contract claim, finding issues of fact regarding the proximate cause of damages and the plaintiffs' cooperation concerning damaged furniture.

Insurance disputeProperty damageHomeowners policySummary judgmentBreach of contractBad faith claimConsequential damagesPunitive damagesAdditional living expensesCooperation clause
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marinaccio v. Town of Clarence

Plaintiff Paul Marinaccio and defendant Kieffer Enterprises, Inc. (KEI) are adjoining landowners in Erie County. KEI, a real estate company, developed a subdivision and, without permission, diverted storm water onto Marinaccio's property, causing extensive flooding and property damage, including creating a wetland and breeding mosquitos. Marinaccio sued KEI and the Town of Clarence for trespass and nuisance. A jury awarded Marinaccio compensatory damages against both defendants and punitive damages ($250,000) against KEI. KEI appealed the punitive damages award, arguing insufficiency of evidence. The Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, finding that while KEI's acts were intentional and tortious, they did not demonstrate the requisite malice or wanton disregard to justify an award of punitive damages, as KEI had complied with planning and development laws and secured permits.

Punitive DamagesTrespassNuisanceStormwater ManagementProperty LawReal Estate DevelopmentIntentional TortErie CountyAppellate ReviewSufficiency of Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 1999

Miller v. Long Island Rail Road

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment awarding the plaintiff damages for personal injuries. The defendant, Long Island Rail Road, and third-party defendants, Gary Nobile and Joseph Miller, appealed various aspects of the jury's verdict from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County. The appellate court modified the judgment by vacating the awards for past and future pain and suffering. It ordered a new trial on these specific damages unless the plaintiff agrees to a significant reduction in the awarded amounts for pain and suffering. If the plaintiff stipulates to the reduced damages, the judgment, as amended, is affirmed, otherwise, a new trial on those causes of action will proceed.

Personal InjuryDamagesJury VerdictAppealPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesLost EarningsContributionSufficiency of EvidenceConsistency of Verdicts
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chelli v. Banle Associates, LLC

This appellate decision from the Supreme Court, Queens County, addresses an action for personal injuries where the defendant third-party plaintiff appealed a jury verdict. Key issues included whether the plaintiff sustained a "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, impacting common-law indemnification, and the excessiveness of damages for future pain and suffering. The court, applying a new interpretation of "permanent total disability" from Rubeis v Aqua Club, Inc., modified the judgment to grant common-law indemnification against the plaintiff's employer. Additionally, the damages award for future pain and suffering was deemed excessive, leading to a new trial on those damages unless the plaintiff accepts a reduced amount.

Personal InjuryGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawCommon-Law IndemnificationPermanent Total DisabilityFuture Pain and SufferingDamages ReductionJury VerdictAppellate ReviewBrain Injury
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2002

Machado v. City of New York

The defendant City of New York appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, regarding damages for personal injuries. The case involved a construction worker who sustained severe injuries, including a spinal fracture and knee destruction, after a trench wall collapse in 1996, for which he obtained summary judgment against the City under Labor Law § 240. The Supreme Court had granted the plaintiff's motion to set aside the jury's inadequate verdict on damages, ordering a new trial unless the City agreed to increased awards for past and future pain and suffering. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, agreeing that the jury's award deviated materially from reasonable compensation. This decision upholds the conditional directive for a new trial on damages.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentTrench CollapseLabor LawDamagesPain and SufferingJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialSpinal Fracture
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1996

Van Guilder v. Sands Hecht Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment in an action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The judgment, entered April 12, 1996, awarded damages for past pain and suffering and past lost earnings, but zero for future damages. The court unanimously affirmed the judgment. The central issue was whether the trial court correctly instructed the jury on mitigation of damages, specifically regarding the plaintiff's refusal to undergo a myelogram, a test repeatedly recommended by his treating orthopedist for diagnosis and potential surgery. The appellate court found ample evidence to justify the mitigation charge, citing the physician's recommendation and the plaintiff's failure to attend physical therapy or seek employment. The court also affirmed the damage award, finding it reasonable given conflicting medical testimony about a herniated disc and inconsistencies in the plaintiff's testimony about his post-accident lifestyle and efforts to find work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)DamagesMitigation of DamagesMyelogramMedical DiagnosisRefusal of TreatmentPain and SufferingLost EarningsHerniated DiscWorkers' Compensation Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jamur Productions Corp. v. Quill

This case involves multiple actions seeking damages from labor unions following the 1966 New York City transit strike. The defendants, referred to as "the Unions," moved for dismissal of all complaints due to legal insufficiency. Plaintiffs asserted various claims, including intentional violation of the Condon-Wadlin Act and a court injunction, prima facie tort, and breaches of human rights and contractual theories. The court granted the defendants' motions, ruling that the Condon-Wadlin Act does not create a private right of action for damages. It further determined that the alleged damages were too remote and indirect to sustain claims of prima facie tort, and that claims based on human rights declarations, stock diminution, and contract were without merit. The decision emphasizes that remedies for the general public regarding public employee strikes must originate from legislative action rather than judicial adjudication.

Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor UnionsCondon-Wadlin ActPrima Facie TortStatutory InterpretationCivil LiabilityRemote DamagesInjunction ViolationCollective Bargaining
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burns Jackson v. Lindner

This case involves a class action lawsuit brought by professional and business entities in Manhattan against various unions and their officers, including the Transport Workers Union (TWU), Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), and George Link. The plaintiffs sought damages resulting from an 11-day mass transit strike in April 1980 in New York City. The complaint asserted causes of action based on prima facie tort, public nuisance, and third-party beneficiary breach of contract. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action. The court denied the motion to dismiss for the prima facie tort and public nuisance claims, concluding that illegal public employee strikes could give rise to private causes of action for damages. However, the motion to dismiss the third-party beneficiary breach of contract claim was granted, as the court found the collective bargaining agreement did not primarily intend to benefit the public to allow private enforcement for consequential damages.

Mass Transit StrikePublic EmployeesLabor DisputePrima Facie TortPublic NuisanceDamagesClass ActionMotion to DismissTaylor LawUnion Liability
References
44
Showing 1-10 of 1,898 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