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

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Essig v. United States

Plaintiffs Robert and Jacqueline Essig sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries Robert sustained in a bicycle-vehicle collision involving a government vehicle. The vehicle was driven by Special Agent Edward P. Hamill of the DEA, who was intoxicated after leaving his office bar but was still on duty, attempting to arrange an undercover meeting. The collision occurred while Hamill was commuting in a government-issued vehicle, authorized for official use and home-to-office travel. The Court found the United States vicariously liable to the plaintiffs, concluding that Hamill was acting within the scope of his employment and using the vehicle with express permission. This liability was established under both New York's doctrine of respondeat superior and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1), with a trial on damages still pending.

Federal Tort Claims ActVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorVehicle and Traffic LawGovernment LiabilityDEA AgentDrunk DrivingBicycle AccidentCommuting
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haust v. United States

Plaintiff Daniel J. Haust filed an action against the United States of America under the Federal Torts Claims Act, seeking compensatory damages for injuries from a 2008 motor vehicle accident. Haust's truck collided with a U.S. Postal Service vehicle operated by employee Angel Warner. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Warner's conduct did not meet the "reckless disregard" standard for hazard vehicles, Haust was presumptively negligent in a rear-end collision, and his self-serving testimony was insufficient. The court denied the motion, finding triable issues of fact concerning Warner's precautions, the accident's location, and whether it was a sideswipe or a rear-end collision, which preclude summary judgment.

Motor Vehicle AccidentFederal Torts Claims ActSummary Judgment MotionReckless Disregard StandardNegligence ClaimRear-End CollisionSideswipe AccidentRural Mail CarrierHazard Vehicle ExceptionFactual Disputes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2006

Owsian v. Cobo

This case involves an appeal concerning a personal injury action stemming from a rear-end collision in a construction zone. Plaintiff Richard B. Owsian, Jr. was a passenger in a vehicle that stopped to avoid colliding with a third vehicle, operated by Michael J. Fricano, which had stopped abruptly. Their vehicle was then rear-ended by a truck operated by Daniel D. Cobo, an employee of Boehmer Transportation Corp. The Supreme Court's initial ruling denied summary judgment for Fricano and the Simoncelli defendants, while granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs against the Boehmer defendants. The appellate court modified this order, reversing the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiffs against the Boehmer defendants, acknowledging the Boehmer defendants' non-negligent explanation for the collision, and affirmed the order as modified.

Personal InjuryVehicular AccidentRear-end CollisionSummary JudgmentNegligenceThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewConstruction Zone AccidentsVehicle and Traffic LawErie County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2003

Yanulavich v. Appeals Board of Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his CPLR article 78 proceeding, which challenged the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) revocation of his driver's license. The revocation stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, who reported vision issues due to diabetes, struck a flag person. After failing initial vision tests and subsequently passing with corrective lenses, the petitioner failed a road test, leading to the license revocation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the DMV had reasonable grounds, based on the accident, the petitioner's statement, and his physician's report, to require a road test, thus supporting the revocation.

driver's licenselicense revocationvision impairmentdiabetesroad test failureadministrative appealCPLR Article 78Vehicle and Traffic Lawreasonable groundsmotor vehicle accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Root v. Sanger

Plaintiff Lawrence B. Root was injured in a vehicle collision while being driven to his office by coemployee Daniel A. Sanger, on a private roadway owned by Rotterdam Ventures, Inc. The collision involved another vehicle driven by coemployee Matthew S. Passamonte. The accident occurred 15 minutes after the workday had ended. Defendants Sanger and Passamonte moved for summary judgment, arguing the claim was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law §29 (6), as they were acting within the scope of their employment. The Supreme Court denied their motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike this affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed, holding that travel to and from work is not activity 'in the course of employment' and the defendants were rendering personal favors, not employer services, at the time of the accident. Therefore, the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law did not apply.

Vehicle AccidentCoemployee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentTravel to/from WorkPersonal FavorsSummary JudgmentNegligenceAppellate ReviewAffirmative Defense
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 2000

Torres v. WABC Towing Corp.

Plaintiff, a road construction worker, was allegedly injured when his truck was rear-ended by defendants' tow truck. The plaintiff had stopped his vehicle for approximately 30 seconds to allow a helper to remove warning cones from the roadway. Although a rear-end collision typically creates a prima facie case of negligence, the defendant driver provided testimony that attributed the collision to causes other than his negligence, stating he observed the plaintiff's stopped truck on a downhill curve, attempted to change lanes without success, and skidded on wet pavement after braking. The trial court's decision to refuse the plaintiff's request for a jury charge on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1129 (a) (following too closely) was upheld due to a lack of evidence that the accident resulted from tailgating. Additionally, the court did not err in instructing the jury on 49 CFR 392.22 and 393.95 concerning comparative negligence, as these regulations did not introduce new factual allegations or theories of liability despite their omission from the defendants' bill of particulars. The appellate court found no adequate justification to consider the plaintiff's remaining unpreserved complaints and affirmed the judgment.

Rear-end collisionNegligenceJury verdictAffirmed judgmentTraffic LawComparative negligenceWet pavementBrakingSkiddingRoad construction worker
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Speckard

Plaintiff, an employee of the State University, was injured in a car collision with defendant Hubert J. Speckard, who was also a State employee and superintendent of a correctional facility. Both were returning home from work in State-owned vehicles at the time of the accident. Plaintiff sued defendant for personal injuries, but the defendant raised an affirmative defense, asserting that workers' compensation was the plaintiff's exclusive remedy due to co-employment. The court examined whether the defendant was acting in the course of his employment, applying an exception for employer-provided vehicles used for commuting when the employer benefits. It was determined that because the defendant was on call 24 hours a day and used a State-provided vehicle equipped for work, his use of the vehicle was within the course of employment, making workers' compensation the plaintiff's exclusive remedy. Consequently, the cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against defendant Speckard was dismissed.

Co-employment defenseExclusive remedyAutomobile collisionCommuting exceptionEmployer benefit ruleState employeesSummary judgmentAffirmative defenseScope of employmentVehicle provision
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 667 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