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
Mar 13, 2015

Malone v. Court West Developers, Inc.

Plaintiff Leslie Malone alleged personal injuries (asthma and permanent allergies) due to mold contamination while working at a bank branch owned by defendant Court West Developers, Inc. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint as untimely under the statute of limitations. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff's alleged exposure to the toxic substance did not occur within three years of commencing the action. The court also concluded that the plaintiff's initial symptoms were too intermittent and inconsequential to trigger the statute of limitations.

Statute of LimitationsToxic TortMold ExposurePersonal InjuryAsthmaAllergic ReactionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureDiscovery RuleIntermittent Symptoms
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Virginia Livermore-Johnson & New York State Department of Corrections & Community Supervision

Petitioner, a Supervising Offender Rehabilitation Coordinator for the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS), faced suspension and termination for allegedly disclosing confidential information to her parolee husband. Her disciplinary grievance proceeded to arbitration, where the arbitrator ordered her reinstatement with back pay, finding DOCCS failed to prove probable cause for suspension and did not establish guilt on all aspects of the charge. When DOCCS refused to reinstate her, petitioner sought to confirm the award in Supreme Court. The Supreme Court denied her application and granted DOCCS's cross-motion to vacate the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's vacatur. The appellate court found the arbitrator's interim decision regarding probable cause was irrational and exceeded his authority. Furthermore, the Appellate Division concluded that the arbitration award, which would have reinstated petitioner without penalty despite her admission of accessing and sharing confidential DOCCS information with a parolee, violated a strong public policy against such disclosures, as outlined in Public Officers Law § 74 and DOCCS's own directives. Consequently, the award was properly vacated.

Arbitration Award VacaturPublic Policy ViolationConfidential Information DisclosureDepartment of CorrectionsEmployee DisciplineCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewState Employee MisconductAdministrative Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Monroe County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n & Monroe County/Monroe County Sheriff

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had denied a petition to confirm an arbitration award and granted a cross-petition to vacate it. The arbitration award mandated that Monroe County provide firearms and training to its deputies in the Civil Bureau of the Monroe County Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court had ruled that the award contravened public policy by infringing upon the Sheriff's discretionary authority under Judiciary Law § 400. However, the appellate court disagreed, concluding that the public policy exception did not meet the stringent criteria for overturning an arbitration award. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, thereby confirming the original arbitration award and denying the cross-petition.

Arbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionCollective Bargaining AgreementMonroe County SheriffCivil Bureau DeputiesFirearms TrainingHealth and SafetyAppellate Court DecisionVacating Arbitration AwardConfirming Arbitration Award
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Snyder v. CNA Insurance

In January 1996, the petitioner sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident while working and received workers’ compensation benefits from CNA Insurance Companies. She later settled a third-party negligence action for $32,500 without obtaining the required consent from CNA. The petitioner sought judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, for this settlement. The Supreme Court initially granted approval, but the appellate court reversed and remitted due to insufficient documentation. Following the submission of additional evidence, the Supreme Court again granted approval, prompting the current appeal. The appellate court reviewed the relevant factors, noting evidence suggesting difficulty in proving serious injury and that respondent CNA suffered no prejudice from the delay. Despite the normal three-month limit for such applications, the Supreme Court's exercise of broad discretion in approving the settlement was not deemed an abuse. Therefore, the order of the Supreme Court was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryMotor Vehicle AccidentThird-Party SettlementJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncConsent RequirementDiscretionary AuthorityAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernthon v. Utica Mutual Insurance

Petitioner was involved in a work-related motor vehicle accident in September 1995 and received workers’ compensation benefits for a knee injury. He settled a third-party action for $34,500 in February 1998 without the consent of his employer's workers' compensation carrier, Utica Mutual Insurance Company. Utica Mutual learned of the settlement in May 1998 but never provided consent. One year after the settlement, petitioner sought judicial approval, nunc pro tunc, for the settlement, which the Supreme Court denied, citing a lack of reasonable excuse for the delay. The court also denied a subsequent motion for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion and reiterating that the responsibility for obtaining carrier consent or seeking a compromise order rests with the petitioner.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party SettlementNunc Pro Tunc ApprovalCarrier ConsentJudicial DiscretionDelay in ApplicationReasonable ExcusePrejudice to CarrierLoss of Future BenefitsMotion for Reconsideration
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bagley v. Moffett

Christopher Bagley, an employee of Holdridge Electric, suffered injuries when a utility pole snapped while he was installing new electrical service at a property owned by unnamed defendants in Greene County. The defendants operated a bed and breakfast at the property in addition to using it as a seasonal home. Bagley and his spouse sued the defendants, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendants’ motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court reviewed the applicability of the homeowners' exemption under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, which protects owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work, but is not available if the dwelling is used solely for commercial purposes. The appellate court determined that the defendants failed to prove that the property was not exclusively used for commercial purposes at the time of the accident. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court’s grant of summary judgment concerning the Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 claims, allowing those causes of action to proceed, while affirming the dismissal of the other claims which were deemed abandoned.

Labour LawHomeowners ExemptionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryElectrical WorkCommercial PropertyResidential PropertyStatutory DutyNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 1991

General Steel Fabricators, Inc. v. Fireman's Fund Insurance

This case concerns an appeal by defendant insurance companies from a Supreme Court decision regarding workers' compensation premium calculations. The Supreme Court had ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that retrospective premium calculations should be made separately for each of three annual policies, resulting in a refund for the plaintiff. Defendants argued that a three-year endorsement linked the policies for a combined retrospective calculation, leading to additional premiums owed by the plaintiff. The plaintiff contended that its secretary-treasurer signed the endorsement due to negligent misrepresentations by James J. Houlihan & Associates, Inc., acting as the defendants' agent, who assured that the endorsement would not be strictly enforced. While the Supreme Court sided with the plaintiff on the premium issue, it dismissed the defendants' cross-claim against Houlihan, a decision which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the cross-claim, concluding that Houlihan acted within its authority as the defendants' agent, relying on information provided by the defendants.

Workers' CompensationInsurance PremiumsRetrospective RatingAgency LawNegligent MisrepresentationContractual EndorsementAppellate CourtCross-ClaimAffirmationJudicial Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johns v. Johns

This case is an appeal regarding a child custody dispute following a divorce. Initially, the parties stipulated to joint custody with physical placement to the plaintiff. However, during divorce proceedings, the Supreme Court awarded physical custody to the defendant, citing evidence of the plaintiff's alcohol abuse and negligence, including incidents where children were left unsupervised near a construction site. The plaintiff appealed, contending that the prior Family Court order should not be altered without an extraordinary change in circumstances. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, underscoring that the child's best interest is the paramount standard in custody determinations and that prior arrangements are merely one factor to consider among the totality of circumstances.

Child CustodyDivorce ProceedingsParental FitnessBest Interest of the ChildAlcohol AbuseParental NegligenceStipulated AgreementPhysical PlacementAppellate ReviewModification of Custody Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danton v. Van Valkenburg

Plaintiff Bernard C. Danton was injured in September 2000 while installing electrical cables, leading him and his wife to file suit under Labor Law § 240 (1) for $4.5 million in damages. They sought partial summary judgment on liability, claiming the ladder provided by the defendant bent and caused Danton to fall. The Supreme Court denied their motion, prompting this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the denial, finding that the defendant's testimony, which alleged Danton admitted he caused the fall by leaning too far, raised a triable issue of fact regarding whether a statutory violation occurred or if Danton's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. The court also noted the plaintiffs waived their hearsay objection by not raising it at the Supreme Court.

Ladder accidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary judgment denialWorker's negligenceProximate causationElevation-related riskAppellate reviewHearsay objection waiverTriable issue of factConstruction site injury
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2004

Leshaj v. Long Lake Associates

The plaintiff was injured while working on a residence, falling approximately eight to nine feet due to an open space between exposed studs and the absence of safety devices. The plaintiff initiated an action alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, subsequently moving for partial summary judgment on the defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied this motion, leading to the current appeal. The appellate court concluded that Labor Law § 240 (1) applies to the risk of falling from an elevated work site, especially when necessary safety devices are absent despite an elevation-related hazard. Consequently, the court reversed the Supreme Court's order and granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on the issue of the defendant's liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), affirming the order as modified.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightLabor Law § 240(1) ViolationSummary Judgment GrantedAppellate ReviewElevated Work SiteSafety Device AbsenceProximate CauseEmployer LiabilityWorker Injury
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 19,687 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