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

Johnson v. Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Mortess Johnson, an African-American woman, sued her employer, DELPHI ENERGY and ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., for racial discrimination. She alleged lower wages, lack of promotion, lower classifications, inadequate equipment and training, and being approached about retirement, unlike non-African-American employees, over her thirty-year tenure ending in 1997. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were time-barred and that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as her statistical evidence alone was insufficient and she did not apply for promotions. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding plaintiff's claims regarding a continuing violation were conclusory and her reliance on statistics alone, without proof of applying for promotions, failed to overcome the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her lack of advancement.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentStatistical EvidenceFailure to Promote
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sperry Systems Management Division v. Engineers Union, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

This case concerns a labor dispute between Sperry Systems Management Division and the Engineers Union regarding subcontracting. Sperry sought to enjoin arbitration, while the Union counterclaimed to compel it, both filing motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether a grievance, challenging the presence of subcontractor employees in Sperry's plant, was arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement's clause explicitly excluding subcontracting decisions. The court, led by Judge Bauman, determined that the issue of arbitrability was for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. Finding the exclusionary clause clear and unambiguous, the court granted Sperry's motion, thereby enjoining the arbitration and denying the Union's counterclaim.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnjoinedCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontracting ClauseSummary JudgmentArbitrabilityContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureLabor Management Relations ActExclusionary Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fabijanic v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

Petitioner Nicholas Fabijanic, representing the Engineers Union, sought to compel Sperry Gyroscope Division and Sperry Systems Management Division to arbitrate a grievance concerning a collective bargaining agreement. The dispute arose after Systems' employees, previously working at the Mississippi Test Facility (MTF) on the National Data Buoy Project, were offered employment with Sperry Space Support, another division, which would result in loss of union coverage. The Union contended the agreement should still apply. The court denied the motion, ruling that the employees had voluntarily accepted employment with an autonomous entity not party to the agreement, thus making the grievance non-arbitrable under the existing contract.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceUnion RepresentationEmployee TransferSperry Rand CorporationNational Labor Relations BoardFederal CourtLabor LawEmployer-Employee Relations
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04811 [208 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2022

Murphy v. 80 Pine, LLC

Daniel Murphy, an employee of Empire Office, Inc., sustained a knee injury after tripping over an electrical conduit ('stub up') at a worksite owned by 80 Pine, LLC, and managed by Rudin Management Co., Inc. He and his spouse filed a consolidated action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) against the owners, general contractor Structure Tone, Inc., and various electrical contractors including United States Information Systems, Inc. (Systems), USIS Electric, Inc. (Electric), and Bigman Brothers, Inc. (Bigman). The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Kings County, largely denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to Systems on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and certain Labor Law § 241(6) claims, and dismissing Bigman's cross-claims against Systems. It also granted summary judgment to Electric for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.30, and to the owners and Structure Tone for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Electric regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and for the owners and Structure Tone regarding specific Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court also affirmed the denial of Electric's motion to dismiss Systems' cross-claim for contractual indemnification and the denial of the owners' and Structure Tone's motion for contractual indemnification against Bigman.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceHazardous ConditionElectrical ConduitWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campaniello v. Board of Managers

This case involves a dispute between Thomas Campaniello, owner of two commercial condominium units, and the Board of Managers of the 225 East 57th Street Condominium. The dispute centers on the responsibility for repairing duct work connected to an auxiliary water tower serving only Campaniello's unit B, which the condominium disconnected. Campaniello filed a complaint alleging breach of contract, trespass, and partial eviction, claiming the condominium was responsible for repairs. The condominium moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing Campaniello was responsible for the maintenance of elements serving only his unit and that his claims lacked legal basis. The court granted the condominium's motion, dismissing all causes of action, including claims for punitive damages, finding Campaniello responsible for the unit's air-conditioning system maintenance.

Condominium LawProperty DisputeBreach of ContractTrespassPartial EvictionMotion to DismissBuilding Code ComplianceUnit Owner ResponsibilityCommon ElementsDeclarations and Bylaws
References
6
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 33753 [U]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2010

Bennett v. Health Management Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Bennett sued Health Management Systems, Inc. (HMS) for age and race discrimination under state and city human rights laws following his termination. Bennett, a 47-year-old Caucasian, alleged he was unfairly criticized and terminated due to age and race after transferring to a new team. HMS contended that Bennett was fired for poor job performance, including consuming alcohol at work. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to HMS, finding no factual support for discrimination. The appellate court affirmed, detailing the legal standards for summary judgment in City HRL discrimination cases and concluding that HMS presented unrebutted evidence of legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for termination, with no evidence of pretext from the plaintiff.

Discrimination LawAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DisputesHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofPretext EvidenceMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
31
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00302 [135 AD3d 572]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2016

Domaszowec v. Residential Management Group LLC

Plaintiff Tracy Domaszowec's decedent died from a fall while cleaning a window on the 13th floor of an apartment building. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on her Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Residential Management Group LLC and 40 Fifth Avenue Corporation (40 Fifth defendants), the building owner and manager. The court found the decedent was engaged in "commercial window washing," thereby making Labor Law § 240 (1) applicable. The court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 202 against Veronica Bulgari and Stephen Haimo due to lack of exclusive control, and common-law negligence claims against T&L Contracting of N.Y., Inc. and Greenpoint Woodworking Inc. due to the lack of an exception to the contractual obligation rule. Issues of fact precluded summary judgment on negligence claims against Panorama Windows, Ltd., and the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur was deemed inapplicable to certain defendants.

Window cleaner fatalityScaffold LawSummary judgment appealAppellate Division First DepartmentCommercial vs. routine window washingLabor Law applicabilityContractual tort liabilityRes ipsa loquitur in negligencePunitive damages dismissalExpert witness evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tuttle v. Housing Opportunities Management & Essential Services, Inc.

The plaintiff, a 30-year-old man diagnosed with retardation, suffered severe burns from an assault by a friend in his apartment. He resided in an intensive supportive apartment provided by Housing Opportunities Management and Essential Services, Inc. (H.O.M.E.S.), a non-profit organization offering housing for individuals with psychiatric or developmental conditions within a state-authorized community living program. While H.O.M.E.S. staff and other therapists had approved his move to this less restrictive setting, concerns arose regarding friends taking advantage of him, leading H.O.M.E.S. to initiate a discharge process for him to move to a more supervised environment, which was not completed before the incident. The court deliberated on whether H.O.M.E.S. owed a duty to protect the plaintiff from a third party's criminal acts. Citing Mental Hygiene Law and various precedents, the court concluded that H.O.M.E.S. had no such special duty, emphasizing that the community care system prioritizes individual liberties and the assault by the friend was not reasonably foreseeable. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Community HousingDevelopmental DisabilitiesPsychiatric ConditionsNegligenceDuty of CareForeseeabilityThird-Party Criminal ActsMental Hygiene LawCommunity Care SystemResidential Programs
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1993

Olsen v. We'll Manage, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal by We'll Manage, Inc. from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff Gary Olsen under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. We'll Manage, Inc. contended that Olsen was its special employee, providing evidence of direct supervision, work assignments, the right to fire him, and payment signed by its personnel, despite his wages being drawn from a general employer's account. The court found this established a special employment relationship. As Olsen received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, he is statutorily barred from maintaining an action against the special employer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted We'll Manage, Inc.'s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarSummary JudgmentLabor LawDirect SupervisionControlAffidavitDeposition TestimonyGeneral EmployerAppellate Reversal
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,994 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