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
Jun 08, 1995

Rigopoulos v. State

Dimitrios Rigopoulos, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while painting a bridge from a floating barge. He and his wife, Victoria Rigopoulos, brought a claim for personal injuries against the State of New York, alleging violations of the Labor Law. The Court of Claims initially awarded damages to the claimants and granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the judgment was reversed. The appellate court ruled that the accident occurred on navigable waters and constituted traditional maritime activity, thus Federal maritime law applied. Consequently, Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes strict liability, was preempted. The case was remitted to the Court of Claims for a new determination on liability under Labor Law § 200 (1) and § 241 (6), which do not impose strict liability and are not preempted by Federal maritime law.

Personal InjuryFederal Maritime LawLabor Law PreemptionStrict LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentDamages AwardRemandBridge Maintenance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jaramillo v. Weyerhaeuser Co.

Plaintiff Mario Miguel Jaramillo sustained serious injuries while operating an industrial Flexo Folder Gluer machine. The machine was purchased used by his employer, Universal Glenwood Packaging Products Corporation, from Weyerhaeuser Company. Jaramillo filed a strict products liability claim against Weyerhaeuser, alleging the machine was defective due to the lack of safety devices. The central issue, certified by the Second Circuit Court of Appeals to the New York Court of Appeals, was whether Weyerhaeuser, as a seller of used equipment, qualified as a 'regular seller' subject to strict liability under New York law. Reviewing prior precedents like Sukljian v Ross & Son Co. and Stiles v Batavia Atomic Horseshoes, the court analyzed the policy considerations behind imposing strict liability. The court concluded that Weyerhaeuser's incidental sales of used, third-hand equipment as surplus did not meet the criteria for a 'regular seller' and would not serve the public policy goals of strict products liability, answering the certified question in the negative.

Strict Products LiabilityCasual Seller DoctrineOrdinary Seller DoctrineUsed Goods LiabilityCertified QuestionNew York LawIndustrial Machinery AccidentWorkplace InjuryCorporate Surplus SalesProduct Defect
References
10
Case No. CV-22-2011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Sukhwinder Singh

Claimant Sukhwinder Singh was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found NLF's cancellation effective, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this, ruling NLF failed to prove proper cancellation and was the liable carrier. NLF appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the requirement for strict compliance with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) regarding policy cancellation notice and deferring to the Board's credibility determinations.

Policy CancellationInsurance LiabilityNonpayment of PremiumsStrict ComplianceNotice RequirementsCertified MailReturn Receipt RequestedBurden of ProofCredibility DeterminationsAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00832 [224 AD3d 1052]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

Matter of Singh v. Atlas NY Constr. Corp.

Sukhwinder Singh, a claimant, was injured while working for Atlas NY Construction Corporation, a subcontractor on a construction project. National Liability & Fire Insurance Company (NLF) denied liability for the claim, asserting it had canceled its workers' compensation policy for nonpayment of premiums prior to the accident. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled in favor of NLF, placing liability on the general contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board modified this decision, concluding there was insufficient evidence of proper policy cancellation by NLF. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that carriers must strictly comply with Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5) for policy cancellation and that the Board's credibility determinations, when supported by substantial evidence, are not to be disturbed. The court found NLF failed to meet its burden of establishing proper cancellation.

Workers' Compensation Policy CancellationInsurance Coverage DisputeNotice RequirementsStrict ComplianceNonpayment of PremiumsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate ReviewCredibility DeterminationsSubstantial EvidenceBurden of Proof
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1994

Kern v. Frye Copysystems, Inc.

The case concerns William and Dorothy Kern's personal injury claims against Frye Copysystems, Inc. and Wheelabrator-Frye Co., stemming from an accident involving a rotary coating machine. The Kerns alleged negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability due to a defective design. The defendants sought summary judgment, arguing immunity under Worker's Compensation Law, that the warranty claim was time-barred, and that strict liability was inapplicable. The court granted summary judgment on the breach of warranty and strict products liability claims, but denied it for the negligence claim against Copysystems, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding machine modifications and successor liability under the "Billy" exception to Worker's Compensation exclusivity.

Personal InjuryProducts LiabilityNegligenceBreach of WarrantySummary JudgmentSuccessor LiabilityWorker's Compensation LawDefective DesignMachine AccidentStatute of Limitations
References
32
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02261 [44 NY3d 57]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Flanders v. Goodfellow

Rebecca Flanders, a postal carrier, sued Stephen and Michelle Goodfellow after their dog bit her during a package delivery, asserting strict liability and negligence claims. Lower courts dismissed both claims, but the Court of Appeals reversed, reinstating the strict liability cause of action due to a triable issue of fact regarding the owners' constructive knowledge of their dog's aggressive behavior. Significantly, the Court explicitly overruled Bard v Jahnke, establishing that common-law negligence is a valid theory of liability for harm caused by domestic animals in New York. This decision creates a two-pronged approach to such cases, allowing plaintiffs to pursue either strict liability for known vicious propensities or ordinary negligence for a failure to exercise due care under the circumstances. The matter was remanded for further proceedings consistent with this new legal framework.

Animal AttackDog BiteStrict LiabilityNegligence Cause of ActionVicious PropensityOverruling PrecedentStare DecisisSummary JudgmentConstructive KnowledgeDomestic Animals
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corporation

Plaintiff, injured due to a scaffold collapse during a house renovation project overseen by Joel Levin for Danbrod Realty Corporation, initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Danbrod, Levin, and Morton Schermerhorn, Jr. The Supreme Court initially granted Danbrod's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. However, on appeal, the court determined that Danbrod, a real estate development corporation purchasing the property solely for commercial renovation and resale, did not qualify for the homeowner exemption from strict liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding Danbrod and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability against Danbrod.

Labor Lawscaffold collapsepersonal injurysummary judgmentstrict liabilityowner liabilitycommercial use exemptionreal estate developmentrenovation projectAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 1994

Kowalski v. Goodyear Tire and Rubber Co.

Plaintiffs Dorothy J. and Louis Kowalski, Jr. sued Goodyear Tire & Rubber Company for negligence and strict liability, alleging Mrs. Kowalski contracted bladder cancer from ortho-toluidine exposure via her husband's work clothes from Goodyear's Niagara Falls plant. Goodyear sought summary judgment, arguing the claim was time-barred, the strict liability claim was undefined, and no duty was owed to Mrs. Kowalski. The court denied Goodyear's motions, ruling that the federally required commencement date under CERCLA preempted the state statute of limitations. The court also found that plaintiffs adequately alleged Goodyear owed a duty of care due to the foreseeable harm from secondary exposure to a known dangerous substance, and that the strict liability claim required further evidence.

negligencestrict liabilitystatute of limitationsCERCLASARAhazardous substancestoxic exposurebladder canceroccupational diseasesecondary exposure
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kalofonos v. State

Spyros Kalofonos, an employee of J & T Painting Company, suffered severe injuries after falling from a scaffold lacking safety rails while sandblasting a State-owned bridge. He and his wife filed claims against the State of New York, asserting strict liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). The Court of Claims found the State strictly liable, awarding Kalofonos $525,000 and his wife $25,000 for loss of consortium. On appeal, the court affirmed the strict liability finding under Labor Law § 240(1). The decision emphasized that the absence of proper safety devices, including safety rails, for scaffolding — even under 20 feet — can result in absolute liability for owners and contractors, irrespective of worker negligence. The court also upheld the damage award, dismissing the State's arguments.

Scaffolding accidentsLabor Law Section 240Strict liabilityWorkplace safetyBridge constructionPersonal injury claimsAppellate reviewDamages assessmentIndustrial Code Rule 23Employer responsibility
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sprung v. MTR Ravensburg, Inc.

Plaintiff, an assembler at General Electric, was injured when a retractable floor panel in a lathe pit detached and fell on him. He initiated a lawsuit against MTR Ravensburg, the lathe manufacturer, and VF Conner, Inc., the fabricator of the retractable floor, asserting claims of strict products liability and negligence. A central issue in the case was whether VF Conner, Inc. qualified as a "casual manufacturer," which would exempt it from strict products liability. The Appellate Division initially dismissed the complaint, deeming Conner a casual manufacturer and attributing the sole cause of the injury to General Electric's improper installation and maintenance. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, reinstating the complaint against Conner and ruling that as a custom fabricator engaged in the regular course of business, Conner was not a casual manufacturer, thus making strict liability applicable. The complaint against MTR Ravensburg was ultimately dismissed.

Strict LiabilityProducts LiabilityCasual ManufacturerCustom FabricationDesign DefectNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorker SafetyIndustrial AccidentRetractable Floor
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,914 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