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

Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension & Welfare Funds v. Allied Design & Construction, LLC

Petitioners, Trustees of Empire State Carpenters Annuity, Apprenticeship, Labor-Management Cooperation, Pension and Welfare Funds, initiated an action to confirm an arbitration award against Allied Design & Construction, LLC. Allied, bound by a collective bargaining agreement, failed to undergo a payroll audit, leading the Funds to estimate a substantial deficiency in contributions. An arbitrator subsequently awarded the Funds $239,901.47, covering the estimated deficiency, interest, liquidated damages, and various fees. The Funds then sought to have this award confirmed by the District Court and requested additional attorneys' fees and costs incurred during the confirmation process. The District Court granted the petitioners' motions, confirming the arbitration award and ordering Allied to pay an additional $737.50 in attorneys' fees and costs.

Arbitration ConfirmationCollective BargainingDelinquent ContributionsAttorney Fees AwardCourt CostsLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActSummary Judgment StandardLodestar CalculationUnion Welfare Funds
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Services Union v. CNH Management Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff Local 144 sought to confirm an arbitration award against defendant CNH Management Associates regarding unpaid wages and benefits for workers at Concourse Nursing Home. CNH cross-moved to dismiss or vacate the award, arguing it was not final and that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The court found that the arbitrator's interim order for CNH to immediately pay over $6 million into an escrow account was ripe for confirmation, viewing it as preliminary equitable relief to preserve the integrity of the final award. Consequently, the court confirmed this specific order but dismissed other aspects of Local 144's petition as not yet ripe for judicial review. The court also rejected CNH's arguments regarding the arbitrator's authority and the nature of the award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementInterim AwardEscrow AccountJudicial ReviewRipeness DoctrineArbitrator's AuthorityEquitable ReliefLabor DisputeWages and Benefits
References
5
Case No. Index No. 161136/17 Appeal No. 15141 Case No. 2021-02236
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2022

Quiroz v. Memorial Hosp. for Cancer & Allied Diseases

Jose Alfonso Perez Quiroz, a construction worker, sustained injuries after falling from an unstable scaffold at a site managed by Memorial Hospital for Cancer and Allied Diseases and general contractor Turner Construction Company. He initiated legal action under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion for partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and dismissed his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, granting Quiroz's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), finding the unsecured scaffold to be a proximate cause of his fall. The appellate court subsequently dismissed the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim as academic.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment AppealPlaintiff LiabilityDefendant LiabilityProximate CausationRecalcitrant Worker Defense
References
17
Case No. CA 12-01329
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2013

MULLIN, CARL D. v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, LLC

Carl D. Mullin, an employee of Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder at a Waste Management of New York, LLC facility. Mullin initiated an action against Waste Management, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against Riccelli for breach of contract. Waste Management alleged that Riccelli failed to name it as an additional insured on various required insurance policies, including workers' compensation, commercial general liability, and automobile liability. The Supreme Court granted Waste Management's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order, also upholding the denial of Riccelli's motion to introduce new evidence, deeming it untimely and unlikely to alter the determination.

Breach of ContractInsurance CoverageAdditional Insured ClauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationThird-Party LitigationPersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLadder FallContractual Indemnity
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

57th Street Management Corp. v. Zurich Insurance

The plaintiff, 57th Street Management Corp., sought a judgment declaring that Zurich Insurance Company, the defendant, had a duty to defend and indemnify it in an underlying negligence action initiated by an injured employee, Isaac Wilner, and a subsequent third-party action by Bade Cab Corp. Wilner was injured in 1984, received workers' compensation benefits from a policy issued by Zurich, and later sued 57th Street Management Corp. and Bade Cab Corp. The action against 57th Street Management Corp. was dismissed due to Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Bade Cab Corp. then served a third-party summons on the plaintiff. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting Zurich's cross motion for summary judgment. The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide timely notice to Zurich of the personal injury action, vitiating coverage, and that notice of the workers' compensation claim did not serve as notice for subsequent actions.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary Judgment AppealTimely Notice RequirementWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityThird-Party LiabilityNew York Appellate LawEmployer's Liability InsuranceVitiation of Coverage
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1990

Service Sign Erectors Co. v. Allied Outdoor Advertising, Inc.

Plaintiff Service Sign, a subcontractor, initiated an action for damages in breach of contract or quantum meruit against Allied, the defendant and third-party plaintiff, after a billboard Allied had contracted to build for the Authority collapsed due to insufficient support. Allied subsequently filed a third-party action against the Authority, seeking indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted dismissal of the first cause of action in the third-party complaint but denied dismissal for the second and third causes of action. On appeal, the higher court modified this decision, ruling that implied indemnification was not available to Allied. The court found that the existing contract between Allied and the Authority explicitly provided for one-way indemnification from Allied to the Authority, thereby precluding any reciprocal implied obligation. Consequently, the appellate court granted the dismissal of all three causes of action in Allied's third-party complaint against the Authority, affirming the modification without costs.

IndemnificationImplied IndemnificationExpress ContractSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintBreach of ContractQuantum MeruitSubcontractorAppellate ReviewContract Interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2008

Baldwin v. Garage Management Corp.

Plaintiffs Jessica Baldwin and an infant plaintiff brought a personal injury action after a collision with a stolen vehicle driven by defendant Michael Walker. The vehicle was stolen from a garage operated by defendants Garage Management Corp., Garage Management Company, LLC, and Ricant Parking, LLC. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the garage defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing claims based on Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) and common-law negligence, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion. Upon reargument, the court adhered to its original determination. The appellate court affirmed the order dated April 15, 2008, finding that the garage was not a "parking lot" under VTL § 129-b, and the vehicle was not left unattended in violation of VTL § 1210 (a). Furthermore, the court found no common-law negligence liability for damages caused by a thief.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentStolen VehicleGarage LiabilityNegligenceVehicle and Traffic LawAppellate AffirmationKings CountyReargument
References
7
Case No. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1987

Langdon v. WEN Management Co.

The plaintiff, widow of Joseph Langdon, appealed an order of the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing her complaint for personal injuries. Joseph Langdon died 17 days after sustaining severe head injuries from a fall at his workplace, Astoria Gardens. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially found Elizabeth and Gregory Associates to be the decedent's employer, but later determined that a 'general/special' employment relationship existed between WEN Management Company and Associates, making both equally liable for benefits. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that the Board's determination of the decedent’s employer had collateral estoppel effect. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that the doctrine of collateral estoppel applies to bar the plaintiff's cause of action against the defendants, as the issue of the decedent’s employer was necessarily decided by the Board after the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to contest it.

Collateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer LiabilityGeneral/Special EmploymentPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewAdministrative Agency Determination
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 14,613 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