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
Nov 02, 2005

Vita v. New York Waste Services, LLC

In an action for personal injuries, the defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss their sixth, seventh, eighth, and eleventh affirmative defenses. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated the lack of merit of these defenses. The defenses were based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiffs provided substantial evidence that the injured plaintiff was employed by Allied Waste Services, Inc. and its subsidiary, Island Waste Services, and was injured by a vehicle owned by defendant New York Waste Services, LLC and operated by defendant Gene R. Brewer. The defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to counter these claims, particularly regarding their assertions of the injured plaintiff being an employee of New York Waste, or that New York Waste was an alter ego, joint venture, or special employer.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAffirmative DefensesMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(b)Appellate ReviewEmployment RelationshipAlter EgoJoint VentureSpecial Employee
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 1986

Montalvo v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers International Union of America Local No. 3

The plaintiff, an employee of Entenmanns Bakery, sustained injuries in an automobile accident and received disability benefits from the defendant. Upon settling a third-party lawsuit related to the accident, the defendant sought to impose a lien on the settlement proceeds for the benefits paid, citing the "Bakery and Confectionery Workers Local No. 3 Welfare Fund Deed of Trust". The plaintiff initiated an action for a declaratory judgment, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law and Insurance Law provisions precluded the defendant's lien. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and to strike the defendant's affirmative defenses. On appeal, the order was modified: the plaintiff's motion to strike the defendant’s first and second affirmative defenses was granted, and the order was otherwise affirmed.

LienDisability benefitsWorkers' Compensation LawInsurance LawGeneral Associations LawSummary judgmentAffirmative defensesImproper serviceDeclaratory judgmentAppellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Medi-Tech International Corp.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity. The same order had also granted the plaintiffs' summary judgment, striking that affirmative defense. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, finding no basis to disregard evidence that the injured plaintiff's employer and the property owner where the injury occurred were distinct legal entities. This distinction meant the exclusivity provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law did not apply. Therefore, the Supreme Court correctly struck the affirmative defense.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDistinct Legal EntitiesEmployer LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityAffirmative DefenseNew York LawJudgment Affirmation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2004

P & T Iron Works v. Talisman Contracting Co.

P&T Iron Works (P&T), a subcontractor, sued Talisman Contracting Co., Inc. (Talisman), a general contractor, for non-payment on a New York City Housing Authority project. Talisman asserted an affirmative defense claiming P&T failed to pay its employees prevailing wages under Labor Law § 220(3). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted P&T's motion to strike this defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that no private right of action for underpayment of wages exists under Labor Law § 220 without a prior administrative determination in the employee's favor. The court further noted that such an action belongs solely to the underpaid employees and that determination of prevailing wage claims is the exclusive initial province of the fiscal officer in an administrative proceeding, thus Talisman lacked standing.

Contract disputeSubcontractor paymentPrevailing wageAffirmative defenseStandingAdministrative determinationLabor LawAppellate procedureMotion to strikeSuffolk County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 1988

Johnson v. Riggio Realty Corp.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a personal injury action brought by firefighter Richard J. Johnson and his wife under General Municipal Law § 205-a. The plaintiffs moved to strike the defendants' affirmative defense of culpable conduct, arguing it does not apply to this special statutory cause of action. The Supreme Court granted this motion, and the appellate court affirmed the decision. The court reasoned that General Municipal Law § 205-a establishes a standard of absolute liability for property owners, similar to Labor Law § 240, and allowing a defense of comparative negligence would undermine the statute's legislative intent to protect firefighters from enhanced risks due to code violations.

Firefighter injuryGeneral Municipal Law 205-aStrict liabilityAbsolute liabilityComparative negligenceContributory negligenceAffirmative defenseProperty owner liabilityStatutory interpretationLabor Law 240 analogy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1993

Healey v. All-Inn Trucking, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dated June 1, 1993, which granted the plaintiff’s motion to dismiss the defendant-appellant’s affirmative defense of workers’ compensation. The court reiterated that when the Workers’ Compensation Board determines that injuries fall outside the scope of the Workers’ Compensation Law, an employer who participated in that hearing cannot subsequently raise the defense of compensation coverage in a civil action. The appropriate course of action for the appellant is an administrative appeal of the Board’s decision, rather than pursuing a civil lawsuit, citing precedent from Liss v Trans Auto Sys. and Werner v State of New York.

workers’ compensation defenseaffirmative defense dismissaladministrative appealcivil actionprior board findingemployer liabilityappellate decisionjudicial reviewmotion to dismiss
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 23, 1996

Cardone v. Villa Margherita, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied his motion to dismiss certain affirmative defenses. The Supreme Court properly denied the plaintiff's motion, as the defendant provided sufficient proof to raise a material question of fact regarding the nature of the plaintiff's employment relationship with the defendant. This question is crucial because the defenses would be barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11 if the plaintiff were an employee of the defendant. The order was affirmed with costs.

personal injuriesaffirmative defensesemployment relationshipWorkers' Compensation LawSupreme CourtNassau Countyappealmotion to dismissquestion of factappellate decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai v. Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc.

The plaintiff, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai, moved to strike several affirmative defenses and dismiss corresponding counterclaims brought by the defendant, Neurocrine Biosciences, Inc. The core dispute involves a patent license agreement and an alleged unlicensed sublicense by Neurocrine to AbbVie. The court granted Mt. Sinai's motion, striking Neurocrine's affirmative defenses for patent invalidity, non-infringement, and patent misuse. The decision emphasized that Neurocrine was estopped from challenging patent validity due to prior benefits from the license and clarified that Mt. Sinai's damages claim was for breach of contract, not future royalties. Consequently, Neurocrine's related declaratory judgment counterclaims were also dismissed.

Patent invalidityNon-infringementPatent misuseBreach of contractLicense agreementSublicenseDeclaratory judgmentMotion to strikeAffirmative defensesEstoppel
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1983

Yollin v. Holland America Cruises, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff who sued Holland America Cruises, Inc. and Holland America Cruises, N. V. on behalf of himself and other passengers for alleged fraud, breach of contract, negligence, and false advertising related to an 11-day cruise. The claims stemmed from purported lack of shopping opportunities at certain ports and an unannounced itinerary change from Bermuda to St. Maarten. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiff's motion for class action certification, a decision affirmed by the appellate court on different grounds, citing a lack of merit in the claims and the impracticality of class action due to potential mini-trials. The court also modified the lower court's order by dismissing the seventh affirmative defense as moot, while otherwise affirming the original decision. The itinerary change was found to be a reasonable exercise of discretion by the defendant due to a strike in Bermuda.

Class actionCruise contractItinerary changeConsumer fraudBreach of contractNegligenceFalse advertisingNumerosity requirementContractual limitationMaritime law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 14,837 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