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

Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home

Plaintiff Richard Lee sued ABC Carpet & Home, Jerry Weinrib, and Paul Chapman for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, asserting he was an employee. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Lee was an independent contractor. The court employed the five-factor 'Economic Reality Test' to determine employment status. Significant factual disputes emerged concerning employer control, Lee's potential for profit or loss, the required skill for the work, the permanence of the working relationship, and whether carpet installation was an integral part of ABC's business. Given these unresolved material facts, the court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Reality TestWage DisputesEmployment LawCarpet InstallersEmployer Control
References
24
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02232 [159 AD3d 1321]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Matter of Larosa v. ABC Supply Co., Inc.

Claimant Stephen Larosa, a crane operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for a right knee injury in April 2015. The employer, ABC Supply Company, Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing it did not arise from employment. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the injury to be work-related. The employer appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Larosa's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, despite arguments concerning inconsistent accounts, an idiopathic condition, and insufficient medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation ClaimRight Knee InjuryCausally Related InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityIdiopathic ConditionPreexisting ConditionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1993

Pennisi v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co.

A longshoreman, having received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, International Terminal Operating Company (ITO), initiated a personal injury action against Standard Fruit & Steamship Company and Netumar Lines. Standard Fruit and Netumar subsequently filed a third-party complaint against ITO for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted ITO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating Standard Fruit's indemnification claim against ITO due to unresolved factual questions regarding Standard Fruit's status as a 'vessel' and the existence of an indemnification contract. The court affirmed the dismissal of contribution claims, citing the LHWCA's exclusivity provision, and remitted the matter for a determination on sanctions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLongshoreman InjurySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintLHWCAVessel StatusContractual IndemnityImplied Indemnity
References
14
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

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03864
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2025

Hasan v. Macerich Co.

In this case, Mohammed Hasan, an injured worker, moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which was granted. The court found the ladder provided was inadequate, leading to Hasan's fall. Defendants Macerich and ABC Imaging, Inc. had their motions to dismiss Hasan's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied. Macerich was granted summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against ABC, despite the contract being dated after the accident but effective retroactively. However, Macerich's claim that ABC breached its insurance procurement clause should not have been dismissed, as a certificate of insurance is not conclusive evidence. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order to deny ABC's motion to dismiss Macerich's breach of contract claim and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Labor Law § 240(1) ClaimFall from LadderInadequate LadderContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contract for InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionRetroactive Contract ProvisionSole Proximate Cause DefenseAppellate Division First DepartmentWorkers' Compensation Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Standard, Inc. v. Oakfabco, Inc.

American Standard, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action in state court against OakFabeo, Inc., seeking a declaration of OakFabeo's direct liability for personal injury and product liability claims related to Kewanee boilers manufactured before 1970, and an injunction against OakFabeo disclaiming these obligations. OakFabeo removed the action to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The federal court sua sponte questioned its subject matter jurisdiction, specifically regarding the amount-in-controversy and American Standard's standing. The court concluded that American Standard lacked standing to seek declaratory relief for third-party liabilities and, more definitively, that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not met. Consequently, the case was remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Asbestos LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyStandingRemoval to Federal CourtRemand to State CourtProduct LiabilityThird-Party Liability
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1985

Angel Music, Inc. v. ABC Sports, Inc.

Angel Music, Inc., along with a class of music publishers, sued ABC Sports, Inc. and The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (Fox), alleging copyright infringement against ABC and breach of fiduciary duty against Fox. The copyright infringement claim stemmed from ABC's alleged unauthorized use of a copyrighted song in an Olympics broadcast. Angel Music contended Fox, acting as their trustee and agent, breached its fiduciary duty by failing to enforce their synchronization rights. Fox moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the breach of fiduciary duty was a state law claim without diversity. The court granted Fox's motion, concluding there was insufficient factual overlap for pendent party jurisdiction but allowed Angel Music to renew the claim after discovery if a relevant defense involving Fox emerged.

Copyright InfringementBreach of Fiduciary DutySubject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionClass ActionSynchronization RightsMusic PublishersTelevision Producers
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baldwin v. City of New York

Cecil Baldwin, an employee of ABC Ambulette Services, Inc., suffered an initial work-related injury in December 1998, for which he received workers' compensation benefits. In March 1999, while being transported in an ABC ambulette driven by Philip Gamer, he was involved in an accident that aggravated his prior injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board continued his benefits, deeming the aggravation a 'consequential injury.' Defendants ABC Ambulette Services, Inc., and Philip Gamer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims, arguing workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial, holding that workers' compensation does not preclude a common-law action for aggravated injuries not arising out of employment, and the appellants failed to eliminate all factual issues regarding the injury's scope of employment. Additionally, they failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment dismissing cross-claims for indemnification.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationAggravated InjuryScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyCommon-Law ActionNegligenceContributionIndemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Toussaint v. Angello

The petitioners sought a determination that the respondent, Commissioner of Labor, violated Labor Law § 27-a (4) (b) by not adopting a safety standard recommended by the New York State Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Abatement Board. The Supreme Court denied this petition, and that decision was subsequently affirmed. The appellate court clarified that the statute does not compel the Commissioner to automatically promulgate all Board recommendations. Instead, it mandates consultation and a showing of necessity for any new standard. The Commissioner's decision to return the proposal for further review was therefore deemed a lawful exercise of authority, not arbitrary or capricious.

Labor LawSafety StandardsOccupational SafetyHazard Abatement BoardCommissioner of LaborStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawMinisterial Duty
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,147 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