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. ADJ1160178 (SAC 0339624)
Regular
Feb 07, 2014

GARY RAUSSER vs. CONSOLIDATED PERSONNEL CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, For LEGION INSURANCE, In Liquidation, BENJAMIN MOORE PAINTS, LUMBERMENS MUTUAL GROUP

This workers' compensation case involves CIGA's petition for reconsideration regarding an applicant's injury while employed by Consolidated Personnel Corp. CIGA sought reimbursement from Benjamin Moore Paints and its insurer, Lumbermens, claiming the applicant was a special employee. However, CIGA subsequently withdrew its reimbursement petition and reconsideration request due to a change in circumstances and a global settlement. The Appeals Board vacated its grant of reconsideration, dismissed CIGA's petition, and returned the matter for the trial judge to consider the parties' stipulation for dismissal.

California Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAspecial employeeBenjamin Moore PaintsConsolidated Personnel Corp.Legion Insuranceliquidationreimbursementstipulated awardpermanent disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Macintyre v. Moore

Pro se plaintiffs Stephen R. MacIntyre and Scott E. Sullivan sued Jack W. Moore and the Town of Henrietta, alleging Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) violations and unjust enrichment, stemming from their alleged misclassification as independent contractors. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, challenging the unjust enrichment claim and the FLSA claim against Moore. The court granted dismissal of the unjust enrichment claim, finding an implied-in-fact contractual relationship barred it, and dismissed the FLSA claim against Moore in his official capacity as redundant. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the FLSA claim against Moore in his individual capacity, concluding that a public official can be held individually liable as an "employer" under the FLSA based on an "economic realities" test. Consequently, the FLSA claims against Moore in his individual capacity and the Town of Henrietta will proceed.

MisclassificationIndependent ContractorFair Labor Standards ActFLSAUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityPublic Official LiabilityPro Se LitigationEconomic Realities Test
References
121
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Moore

The case concerns defendant Kevin Glenn Moore's motions to suppress evidence obtained from searches of a car and a motel room, and an oral statement, citing violations of the Fourth Amendment and Miranda rights. District Judge Brieant denied all suppression motions. The court found the car searches lawful due to the victim's consent and Moore's lack of a legitimate expectation of privacy. The motel room search was validated by a federal warrant and the victim's inhabitant victim's consent, with the court also noting the applicability of the 'good faith exception'. Moore's statement, made voluntarily without interrogation after asserting his Miranda rights, was deemed admissible.

Suppression MotionFourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureProbable CauseWarrantless SearchConsent to SearchVictim ConsentMotel Room SearchVehicle SearchMiranda Rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC

This case involves Patrice Benjamin and Brenda Thomas (Plaintiffs) suing Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (Defendant) for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York Human Rights Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, while the Plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint. The court dismissed Brenda Thomas's Title VII and NYSHRL claims entirely and limited Patrice Benjamin's Title VII and NYSHRL claims for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment to actions occurring after December 21, 2002. The court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' Section 1983/Bivens claims but denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Benjamin's ADA claim. Finally, the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the complaint was granted in part, allowing for the inclusion of a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 cause of action for both plaintiffs, along with specific, limited claims for Benjamin in the amended complaint.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1981Judgment on the PleadingsAmending Complaint
References
28
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 32713(11)
Regular Panel Decision

Caballero v. BenJamin Beechwood, LLC

This case concerns appeals and cross-appeals stemming from a personal injury action where the plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold at a construction site in Queens. The Supreme Court's order addressed motions for summary judgment regarding Labor Law violations and contractual indemnification among the property owner (Benjamin Beechwood, LLC), general contractor (Rockaway Beach Blvd. Construction Co., LLC), and subcontractor (LCC Contracting Corp.). The appellate court affirmed the order, holding Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, and Rockaway Beach Blvd. Construction Co., LLC, liable under Labor Law § 240 (1), while dismissing the same claim against LCC Contracting Corp. Additionally, the appellate court upheld the contractual indemnification claim of Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, and Rockaway Beach Blvd. Construction Co., LLC, against LCC Contracting Corp. Appeals by Linden Construction Corp. and certain aspects of LCC Contracting Corp.'s appeal and Benjamin Beechwood, LLC, and Rockaway Beach Blvd. Construction Co., LLC's cross-appeal were dismissed as not aggrieved.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentScaffold FallLabor Law Section 240(1)Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewQueens CountyNegligenceSubcontractor Liability
References
11
Case No. SAC 339624
Regular
Jul 21, 2008

GARY RAUSSER vs. CONSOLIDATED PERSONNEL CORPPORATION and CIGA, CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES GROUP, INC., LEGION INSURANCE

CIGA sought reconsideration and removal after the WCJ denied their request to join Benjamin Moore Paints, arguing it was a necessary defendant. However, the Board dismissed CIGA's Petition for Reconsideration, finding the order denying joinder was not a final order, and denied the Petition for Removal, as CIGA failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Benjamin Moore was already a party defendant, making further joinder unnecessary.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGAPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJInterlocutory Procedural OrderFinal OrderDue Process RightsGeneral/Special EmploymentJoinder of Defendants
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance

This case addresses whether an 'absolute pollution exclusion' in an insurance policy applies to indoor dissemination of paint or paint solvent fumes. Belt Painting Corp., the plaintiff, was sued by Joseph and Maria Cinquemani for injuries sustained from inhaling fumes during Belt's work. TIG Insurance Company, the defendant and Belt's insurer, denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion. The Supreme Court initially sided with TIG, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision. The Appellate Division held that the exclusion does not apply to cases where the 'environment,' as commonly understood, is unaffected by what could realistically be defined as 'pollution,' thus mandating TIG to defend and indemnify Belt.

Insurance LawPollution ExclusionAbsolute Pollution ExclusionContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyIndemnificationDeclaratory JudgmentIndoor Air ContaminationToxic FumesPaint Solvent
References
30
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02272 [237 AD3d 566]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2025

Moore v. Skanska USA Bldg., Inc.

Plaintiff Joseph Moore appealed the denial of his motion for summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Moore testified that he fell when a ladder slipped out from under him. The defendants, Skanska USA Building, Inc. and others, submitted affidavits from managers denying Moore's account, specifically challenging his claim of being directed to fix a damper on a rush basis and asserting the accident could not have happened as he described. The court found that these conflicting accounts raised triable issues of fact concerning the plaintiff's version of events and his credibility. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment, determining that such issues are for a jury to resolve.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkLadder AccidentSummary JudgmentTriable Issues of FactCredibilityConstruction SafetyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorkplace Accident
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04471 [196 AD3d 1182]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2021

Omar v. Moore

Plaintiff Nasir Muzaid Omar brought an action against Michael Moore, II, and Sadeq Ahmed, alleging breach of contract, negligence, and unjust enrichment stemming from unsatisfactory construction work. Following a prior appeal where the unjust enrichment claim against Ahmed survived, and the discontinuance of the action against Moore, Ahmed moved for summary judgment to dismiss the sole remaining unjust enrichment cause of action. The Supreme Court granted Ahmed's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the judgment, denied Ahmed's motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the unjust enrichment cause of action, finding Ahmed failed to meet his prima facie burden.

Summary judgmentUnjust enrichmentBreach of contractNegligenceConstruction disputeAppellate reviewPrima facie showingFraudulent inducementQuasi-contractMotion practice
References
17
Case No. CA 14-01267
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

CARR, DANIEL v. MCHUGH PAINTING CO., INC.

Plaintiffs Daniel and Susan Carr initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, sustained a back injury while installing a door from a scissor lift at a renovation site. The Supreme Court denied the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s, motion for summary judgment and partially granted plaintiffs' cross-motion under Labor Law § 240 (1), allowing an amendment for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It granted McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s motion in part, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion in its entirety. The court determined that Daniel Carr's injury was not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the proposed Industrial Code violation for Labor Law § 241 (6) lacked merit.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScissor Lift AccidentElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor Liability
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 374 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