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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00995 [202 AD3d 895]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Aponte v. Airport Indus. Park, LLC

The plaintiff, Rafael Aponte, appealed the denial of his cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. Concurrently, third-party defendant Young's Auto Collision and Glass, Inc., appealed the granting of summary judgment for common-law indemnification to Airport Industrial Park, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion, citing triable issues of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's work constituted 'repairing' or routine maintenance under Labor Law § 240 (1). However, the court reversed the grant of summary judgment against Young's Auto Collision and Glass, Inc., denying the common-law indemnification claim, as Airport Industrial Park, LLC, failed to establish Young's negligence or supervision of the work.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryLadder FallRoutine MaintenanceWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskNegligence
References
13
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gampero v. Mathai

The defendant Monachan Mathai appealed various orders and judgments from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning a breach of contract action. The plaintiffs, Louis Gampero and New Security Collision, Inc., had sued Mathai alleging breach of a stock purchase agreement due to undisclosed debts after the sale of an automobile repair business. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on indemnification and attorney's fees. The Appellate Division reversed the amended judgment, denying the plaintiffs' motions for summary judgment on both the indemnification and attorney's fee claims, finding they failed to establish payment of the debts or that attorney's fees were clearly permitted. The Court upheld the denial of Mathai's cross-motion for summary judgment and his motion for attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractStock Purchase AgreementIndemnificationAttorney's FeesSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFrivolous ConductUndisclosed DebtsBusiness SaleNew York Law
References
10
Case No. ADJ1778830 (STK 0204284)
Regular
Jun 25, 2013

JOSE DAVILLA vs. GOLDEN STATE COLLISION CENTERS, TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

This case concerns Jose Davila's petition for reconsideration after the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied his claim for increased benefits under Labor Code section 132a. Davila argued his employer, Golden State Collision Centers, improperly terminated him due to his work-related injury. The WCJ found Davila failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as his termination was for failing to provide requested FMLA paperwork, a policy applied uniformly to all employees regardless of injury status. Furthermore, the employer credibly testified they were unaware of the work-related injury until after Davila's termination. Consequently, the WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibilityAssistant PainterDate of InjuryFMLA paperworkDiscriminationDetrimental Consequence
References
1
Case No. ADJ1653878 (VNO 0560916), ADJ4156597 (VNO 0561366)
Regular
Mar 21, 2019

ALFREDO BRIBIESCA vs. COLLISION 2000 AUTOBODY & PAINT, COLLISION 2000, INC., MINH V. LY, RAYMOND CAM

This case concerns a defendant's Petition for Reconsideration, which was dismissed as untimely. The petition was filed on January 23, 2019, but the deadline to file, based on the served Order Approving Compromise and Release on June 15, 2018, was July 10, 2018. Although the petition is dismissed procedurally, the Board noted the allegation of good cause to set aside the Compromise and Release. Therefore, the WCJ is directed to treat the petition as seeking to set aside the agreement for good cause and schedule a hearing.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimely FilingJurisdictional Time LimitWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseProof of ServiceGood CauseSet AsideDue Process
References
0
Case No. ADJ705744 (AHM 0148879)
Regular
Feb 05, 2013

PATRICK MURRAY vs. BALTAZAR PEREZ, DBA PERFORMANCE AIR AND MECHANICAL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, CALIFORNIA COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Patrick Murray's petition for reconsideration, upholding the findings of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCJ's report, which was adopted by the Board, determined that Murray was not an employee of California Auto Collision on the date of his injury. The Uninsured Employers Benefits Trust Fund's (UEBTF) petition for reconsideration was dismissed as skeletal and would have been denied on its merits as well. The Board found that the evidence supported the conclusion that Murray was an employee of Baltazar Perez, DBA Performance Air and Mechanical, and not California Auto Collision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationUninsured Employers Benefits Trust FundSkeletal PetitionWCAB Rule 10846Employee StatusIndependent ContractorControl TestSecondary IndiciaBorello Factors
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 1981

Claim of Nizich v. Robert F. Barreca, Inc.

A claimant, an insurance company adjuster, experienced chest pains and numbness after a near automobile collision during work on December 8, 1976. Despite an initial normal medical examination, symptoms recurred, leading to a heart attack on December 30, 1976. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a referee's finding, concluding that the emotional trauma from the near collision, superimposed on a dormant heart condition, precipitated the myocardial infarction, constituting a compensable accidental injury with related disability. This decision was supported by conflicting medical testimony which the Board, as the trier of fact, was free to accept or reject. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationEmotional TraumaMyocardial InfarctionCausal RelationshipAccidental InjuryMedical TestimonySubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewCardiac EventInsurance Adjuster
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 02083 [148 AD3d 1084]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Tumminello v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Anthony Tumminello and his wife initiated an action against the City of New York for personal injuries sustained in a rear-end collision involving a Department of Sanitation truck. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs had successfully established prima facie negligence on the part of the City's employee and the absence of comparative fault. The court determined that the defendant failed to offer a non-negligent explanation for the collision, despite arguments regarding a sudden stop or wet road conditions, thereby granting the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability.

Personal InjuryRear-end CollisionSummary JudgmentNegligenceComparative FaultTraffic AccidentAppellate ReviewMunicipal LiabilityDepartment of SanitationWet Road Conditions
References
20
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

City of New York v. Waterfront Airways, Inc.

This case involves multiple lawsuits stemming from a collision between a Cessna Floatplane, owned by AMW Corp. and operated by Waterfront Airways, Inc., and a New York City Police Department Helicopter. The collision occurred over Brooklyn, leading to fatalities and injuries. The City of New York, passengers John Toolan, Eileen McCarthy, Joseph C. Stamler, and AMW Corp. are involved in various suits against each other. The court addressed several motions by the City, denying dismissal for failure to join indispensable parties and forum non conveniens. However, the court granted dismissal of certain actions for lack of admiralty jurisdiction, denied the City's motion to implead, and ordered a joint trial on liability with separate trials for damages.

Aviation AccidentAdmiralty JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionIndispensable PartiesForum Non ConveniensConsolidation of ActionsThird-Party PracticeDiversity JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionJoint Tortfeasors
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 110 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