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

State v. GTE Valeron Corp.

Charles Stevens, a former employee, sued his former employer under New York's Right to Know Law on Toxic Substances (Labor Law art 28). Stevens sought information about his exposure to toxic substances, including cobalt, during his 13 years of employment, but the defendant failed to provide adequate information. Stevens commenced an action seeking civil penalties and an order compelling disclosure, and subsequently died. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Stevens' estate, imposing a $10,000 fine on the defendant for non-compliance. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the Right to Know Law applies to former employees and that federal regulations did not preempt the state law.

Toxic SubstancesRight to Know LawEmployee RightsFormer EmployeesOccupational ExposureSummary JudgmentCivil PenaltiesWorkplace SafetyPreemption DoctrineLabor Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. City of New York

The plaintiffs, employees of Grow-Kiewit-Catapano, filed a personal injury lawsuit against Sverdrup & Parcel Consultants, Inc., and the City of New York, alleging injuries from improper air pressure regulation during sewer tunnel construction. They claimed to suffer from "caisson disease," discovered years after their work ended. Sverdrup moved to dismiss, arguing the action was time-barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214[5]). The plaintiffs countered that CPLR 214-c, which allows for discovery-based accrual in cases involving latent injuries from toxic substances, applied. The appellate court reversed the lower court's denial of dismissal, holding that compressed air, despite its potential to cause latent injuries when improperly regulated, does not qualify as a "toxic substance" under CPLR 214-c. Consequently, the action was deemed untimely, leading to the dismissal of the complaint and all cross-claims against both defendants.

Personal InjuryStatute of LimitationsLatent InjuryToxic SubstanceCaisson DiseaseCompressed AirSewer Tunnel ConstructionOccupational DiseaseAppellate ReviewCPLR 214-c
References
5
Case No. CV-04-1308
Regular Panel Decision

55 Motor Avenue Co. v. Liberty Industrial Finishing Corp.

This case involves two consolidated actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) concerning liability for removing hazardous substances from the Liberty Industrial Finishing Superfund Site in Farmingdale, New York. The court considered and granted a proposed consent judgment, which outlines a $31.8 million remedial plan to clean up toxic substances from soil and groundwater. Various private parties, along with the United States Department of Defense and the United States General Services Administration, agreed to share the cleanup costs. The court found the settlement to be procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and consistent with CERCLA's objectives, despite an area of remaining contamination (Plume B) that will be addressed separately.

CERCLAEnvironmental cleanupHazardous wasteSuperfund SiteConsent judgmentRemedial actionGroundwater contaminationSoil contaminationIndustrial parkFederal litigation
References
13
Case No. 13634/93
Regular Panel Decision

Annunziato v. City of New York

This case involves an action by 35 plaintiffs against the City of New York, seeking damages for personal injuries due to alleged exposure to toxic emissions from the Fresh Kills landfill. The defendant challenged 19 of these actions on Statute of Limitations grounds, specifically under CPLR 214-c. The court interpreted the 'discovery of the cause of the injury' to include the identification of the specific toxic substance. The motion to dismiss was ultimately denied for 14 plaintiffs but granted for five named plaintiffs (Brian Pisciotta, Anthony Ferrara, Michael Ferrara, Lori Ann DeForest, and Joshua Solomon) whose actions were deemed time-barred. Additionally, a motion for severance was denied, and a cross-motion to consolidate four actions under index No. 13634/93 was granted.

Statute of LimitationsToxic ExposureLandfill EmissionsPersonal InjuryCPLR 214-cDiscovery RuleProximate CauseEnvironmental LitigationMunicipal LiabilityTimeliness of Action
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acevedo v. Consolidated Edison Co.

This action addresses the protection of individuals exposed to toxic substances, specifically asbestos, who suffer no current physical disability but are at risk of future illness. The court recognizes the right for victims of toxic torts to seek the cost of continuous medical monitoring to allow early disease detection. Employee plaintiffs of Con Edison were exposed to friable asbestos after an explosion and seek medical monitoring, emotional distress, and battery damages. Con Edison moved for partial summary judgment, arguing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 bars the claims. The court dismissed claims for emotional distress and battery, finding them compensable under Workers' Compensation or not ripe for common law. However, the court denied dismissal of the medical monitoring and public nuisance claims, ruling they are not compensable under Workers' Compensation Law as they don't involve a present disability, and recognized a common-law cause of action for medical monitoring in New York.

Asbestos ExposureToxic TortMedical MonitoringWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityIntentional Tort ExceptionEmotional Distress ClaimsBattery ClaimsPublic NuisanceSummary Judgment MotionFuture Disease Risk
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Litwack v. Plaza Realty Investors, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding an action for personal injuries allegedly caused by toxic mold in a plaintiff's apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint, and these orders were subsequently affirmed on appeal. The central legal question revolved around whether the defendants' knowledge of a discolored, wet wall and a steam pipe leak constituted sufficient notice of a potential mold hazard. The majority concluded that such knowledge, as a matter of law, did not establish notice of potential mold growth. A dissenting opinion argued that the focus should be on whether defendants had notice of persistent water leaks, from which a hazardous mold condition was foreseeable, citing the plaintiff's repeated complaints and an expert's opinion.

Toxic MoldPersonal InjuryLandlord LiabilitySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeWater DamageAppellate ReviewExpert WitnessPremises LiabilityEnvironmental Health
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1978

People v. Murray

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, rendered a judgment on November 3, 1978, convicting the defendant-appellant of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree, which led to an appeal. The defendant failed to appear for a scheduled court appearance during pretrial proceedings but subsequently returned and entered a guilty plea. Initial discussions regarding a plea for a one-year minimum sentence were deemed conditional and non-binding due to the defendant's abscondence. The defendant ultimately entered a plea with the understanding of a three-year minimum sentence, with a provision for withdrawal if the probation report suggested a harsher punishment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, highlighting the defendant's prior arrests for drug-related offenses and emphasizing the importance of upholding judicial rules against flouting court directives.

Criminal LawPlea BargainAbscondingControlled SubstanceAppellate ReviewSentencingJudicial DiscretionWithdrawal of PleaProbation ReportBronx County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1999

People v. Abdul

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in the Supreme Court, New York County, of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and sentenced to a term of 2 to 6 years. The judgment was unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court determined that the verdict was based on legally sufficient evidence and there was no basis to disturb the jury's credibility determinations. The court properly denied the defendant’s preclusion motion regarding a statement made to Emergency Medical Services (EMS) personnel, finding no evidence that EMS workers acted as police agents and that the inquiry was not an interrogation. The appellate court also found no basis for a reduction of the sentence and rejected the defendant's remaining claims.

Criminal LawControlled SubstancesJury TrialEvidence SufficiencyPreclusion MotionPolice AgencyInterrogationSentence ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between New York State Office of Alcoholism & Substance Abuse Services & Ortiz

Victor Ortiz, an employee of New York State Office of Alcoholism and Substance Abuse Services (OASAS) and a member of PEF, was terminated for failing to maintain his required CASAC certification. OASAS did not follow the disciplinary procedures outlined in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between PEF and the state, asserting that his failure to maintain certification automatically disqualified him. Ortiz, represented by PEF, filed a grievance, arguing his termination violated articles 33 and 39 of the CBA. When OASAS and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations maintained that the grievance process was inapplicable, respondents served a notice of intention to arbitrate. Petitioners sought to permanently stay arbitration in Supreme Court, but their petition was dismissed, and respondents' cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the dispute, concerning the interpretation and application of the CBA's disciplinary procedures, falls within the arbitration clause of article 34 of the CBA. The court emphasized that it is for an arbitrator to determine if article 33 of the CBA applies to terminations due to loss of required certification.

Public Sector EmploymentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee TerminationProfessional CertificationDisciplinary ProcedureGrievance ProcessAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Hinkein

The defendant appealed a judgment from the County Court of Columbia County, rendered on February 15, 2001, convicting her of three counts of criminal sale of a controlled substance in the third degree and one count of endangering the welfare of a child following a guilty plea. The defendant argued that the County Court erred in accepting her plea without first conducting a competency examination under CPL 730.20, given her history of manic depression. However, the Appellate Division found that the County Court did not abuse its discretion, citing correspondence from social workers indicating no mental status abnormalities and the defendant's capable responses during the plea colloquy. The appellate court also determined that the imposed sentence was neither harsh nor excessive, considering the defendant's criminal history and her use of a 12-year-old child as a drug courier. Consequently, the judgment of the County Court was affirmed.

Criminal sale of controlled substanceEndangering welfare of childGuilty pleaCompetency issueCPL 730.20Second felony offenderConcurrent sentenceManic depressionMental health assessmentAppellate review
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 249 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