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

Allen v. Oberdorfer Foundries, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a parent corporation's liability for workers' compensation claims of a subsidiary's employee. The Supreme Court initially determined that Oswego Castings Corp., the employer, was the alter ego of its parent, Oberdorfer Foundries, Inc. The appellate court found this determination to be erroneous as a matter of law, clarifying that for corporations to be considered alter egos, the parent must directly intervene and completely dominate the subsidiary's everyday operations, a standard not met by the evidence presented. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the complaint, mandating that the alter ego issue be determined at trial.

Alter Ego DoctrineCorporate LiabilityParent-Subsidiary RelationshipSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate DecisionCorporate DominationWorkers' Compensation LiabilityEmployment RelationshipReinstatement of ComplaintTrial Determination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2004

Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n v. a & M Heating, Air Conditioning, Ventilation & Sheet Metal, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Local Union Number 38 and A & M Heating, with the Union alleging A & M Heating is the alter ego of Hudson Heating to enforce a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and compel arbitration. The court first clarified its jurisdiction, affirming its ability to determine alter ego status but not to impose post-expiration obligations under the NLRA. After examining factors such as management, business purpose, equipment, operations, customers, supervision, common ownership, and anti-union animus, the court concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish alter ego status. Consequently, the Union's motion to compel arbitration was denied, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, with judgment entered in favor of the defendant.

Labor LawAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSubject Matter JurisdictionLMRA Section 301NLRABankruptcyChapter 7Summary Judgment
References
57
Case No. 10-CV-0347
Regular Panel Decision

Sentry Insurance v. Brand Management Inc.

Sentry Insurance initiated actions against Brand Management, Inc., Budget Services, Inc., and Hershel Weber for claims including breach of contract and alter ego liability, arising from workers' compensation insurance policies. Brand and Budget, controlled by Weber, allegedly breached the casualty agreement by failing to pay Sentry, leading to significant unpaid claims. The defendants engaged in recalcitrant discovery behavior, resulting in a preclusion order against their alter ego defense. The Court found Weber completely dominated Brand and Budget, using this domination to undercapitalize them and render them judgment-proof, thereby committing a wrong against Sentry. Consequently, the Court granted Sentry's motion for partial summary judgment on breach of contract against Brand and Budget, and on alter ego liability against Weber, while denying the defendants' cross-motion.

Breach of ContractAlter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCorporate UndercapitalizationInter-company Fund TransfersDiscovery SanctionsCorporate FormalitiesInsurance Dispute
References
30
Case No. 07 Civ. 4627 (LLS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Board of Managers of the 195 Hudson Street Condominium v. Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff Board of Managers of the 195 Hudson Street Condominium filed a diversity action against Jeffrey M. Brown Associates (JMB), seeking to declare JMB an alter-ego of K & J Construction Co., L.P. to recover an outstanding state court judgment against K&J. JMB moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court found the Rooker-Feldman doctrine inapplicable. Reviewing two prior state court proceedings (Northeast Litigation and Conversion Litigation), the court determined that the alter-ego claim was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel concerning the Northeast Litigation, primarily due to lack of adversity and a full and fair opportunity to litigate for the Board. However, the court ruled that the Board's alter-ego claim was barred by res judicata concerning the Conversion Litigation, as the claim arose from the same transaction and should have been raised in that prior proceeding. Consequently, JMB's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted with prejudice.

Res JudicataCollateral EstoppelRooker-Feldman DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingAlter-ego LiabilityMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)State Court JudgmentConstruction DefectBreach of Contract
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Len v. State

Decedent, an employee of New York State Canal Corporation, tragically died after falling from a movable dam on the Erie Canal while clearing debris. His father, as administrator, subsequently filed a wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering claim against the Corporation, the State of New York, and the New York State Thruway Authority. Defendants moved to dismiss, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity. The Court of Claims granted the dismissal, deeming the New York State Thruway Authority an alter ego of the Corporation and thus entitled to the exclusivity defense, and also found proposed Labor Law claims against the State lacked merit. The appellate court affirmed, concurring that the Corporation was an alter ego of the Authority for workers' compensation purposes and that the decedent's work constituted routine maintenance, not alteration or construction under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).

Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivityalter ego doctrineLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)routine maintenancesignificant physical changeconstruction workwrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingparent-subsidiary relationship
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shine v. Duncan Petroleum Transport, Inc.

Chief Judge Cooke concurs with the majority's reasoning and result, adding an additional ground for reversal. The Workers’ Compensation Board had previously determined Five Boro to be the decedents' employer. Duncan Petroleum claimed co-employer status, asserting it was an alter ego of Five Boro. Judge Cooke emphasized that the question of whether companies are alter egos, requiring the piercing of the corporate veil, is a matter for the courts to decide, as it concerns the legal identity and relationship of corporations, not merely the availability of workers' compensation, thus not requiring mandatory deferral to the Board.

Workers' Compensation BoardAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingEmployer StatusCo-employerJudicial ReviewDeference to Administrative AgenciesWorkers' Compensation Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2011

Quizhpe v. Luvin Construction Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted summary judgment to defendants Luvin Construction Corp. and Jose I. Sanchez in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the order, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity defense extends to entities that are alter egos of the employer. The defendants successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that Luvin Construction Corp. and the plaintiff's employer, FML Contracting, Inc., operated as a single integrated entity, thus establishing an alter ego defense. The plaintiff failed to present a triable issue of fact in opposition to this defense.

personal injurysummary judgmentalter ego doctrineworkers' compensation exclusivityNassau County Supreme Courtappellate affirmationemployer liabilityintegrated entityfactual disputedefendants' motion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2009

Lee v. Arnan Development Corp.

Plaintiff Anthony Lee, a cement truck operator, suffered knee injuries after falling due to soft ground and concrete debris while cleaning his truck at a facility operated by defendant Oneonta. Lee and his wife filed a negligence action against Oneonta. Oneonta sought summary judgment, arguing it was an alter ego of Lee's employer, making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy, and that it had no notice of a dangerous condition. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that Oneonta failed to demonstrate an alter ego relationship and did not prove it maintained a reasonably safe premises.

Workers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineNegligencePremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityCorporate SeparatenessPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1993

Devorin v. One Wall Street Corp.

In this personal injury action, the plaintiffs moved to strike the defendant’s second affirmative defense, which invoked Workers’ Compensation. Concurrently, the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The core issue was whether the defendant, as the building owner, functioned as the alter ego of the plaintiff's employer. The IAS Court determined that the defendant failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence to prove an alter ego relationship as a matter of law. Consequently, the court found that the plaintiffs’ claims were not precluded by the Workers’ Compensation Law. This decision was subsequently affirmed without costs.

personal injuryworkers' compensationaffirmative defensesummary judgmentalter ego doctrineemployer liabilitybuilding owner liabilitymotion to strikeNew York lawAppellate Division
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matsos Contracting Corp. v. New York State Department of Labor

GBE Contracting Corporation faced allegations of failing to pay prevailing wages on public works contracts. The Department of Labor initiated proceedings, identifying the petitioner as an alter ego of GBE, thus subjecting it to similar sanctions. Despite being notified of a hearing, both GBE and the petitioner purposefully defaulted, leading to a finding that GBE deliberately underpaid wages and that the petitioner was its alter ego. The petitioner then sought judicial review via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the administrative determination. However, the Court dismissed the petition, affirming the principle that a party cannot appeal an administrative determination entered upon their deliberate default.

Public WorksPrevailing WageAlter EgoDefault JudgmentAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewLabor LawCPLR Article 78Corporate LiabilityWage Theft
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 458 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