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

Lobosco v. Best Buy, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Everest National Insurance Company concerning its duty to defend and indemnify Schimenti Construction Corporation, Best Buy, Inc., and Dame Contracting, Inc., in a personal injury action. The underlying plaintiff, an employee of Dame, sustained injuries on a construction site. Schimenti and Best Buy, a general contractor and property owner, were allegedly not named as additional insureds on Dame's policy with Everest, despite a contractual requirement. All parties involved failed to provide timely notice of the accident to Everest. The Supreme Court initially denied Everest's cross-motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court granted Everest's cross-motion, ruling that the failure to provide timely notice vitiated the insurance contract and that the reasons for delay were unreasonable. Consequently, Everest was determined to have no obligation to defend or indemnify the other parties.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyTimely NoticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSubcontractor LiabilityAdditional InsuredsPersonal InjuryLate Notice Defense
References
16
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00367 [157 AD3d 1143]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2018

Matter of Wallen v. Software Communication Sys. Inc.

Claimant, Noel O. Wallen, a software engineer and sole shareholder of SCS Inc., suffered a stroke on March 8, 2012, while attending a meeting related to a discrimination complaint. Initially, his workers' compensation claim was established by a WCLJ. However, new evidence revealed the meeting was for a discrimination complaint he filed against a former employer (Teknavo Group Inc.), not related to his employment with SCS. The Workers' Compensation Board subsequently rescinded the initial WCLJ decision and, after further hearings, disallowed the claim, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment with SCS. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Wallen's stroke was a result of a personal quest against a former employer, not connected to his work for SCS.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsStroke InjuryCourse of EmploymentArising Out of EmploymentDiscrimination ComplaintPersonal QuestCausationSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoesten v. Best

Plaintiff Raymond J. Hoesten, a former stage manager, sued Constance Best, an AFTRA executive assistant, and AFTRA for defamation and tortious interference after his termination by ABC. Hoesten alleged Best's statements about his workplace conduct led to his dismissal. The court addressed whether some claims were time-barred, if federal labor law preempted state claims, and if actual or common-law malice was proven. The appellate court ruled that claims prior to July 1998 were time-barred, federal law partially preempted state defamation claims, and Hoesten failed to demonstrate malice. Ultimately, the court dismissed the complaint against both Best and AFTRA.

DefamationTortious InterferenceFederal Labor Law PreemptionActual MaliceQualified PrivilegeStatute of LimitationsSingle Publication RuleUnion LiabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementWorkplace Misconduct
References
42
Case No. 12-CV-5011
Regular Panel Decision

Best v. New York City Department of Correction

Plaintiff Sean Best, a pro se pretrial detainee, filed an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the NYC DOC and several individual defendants, alleging violations of his Eighth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Best claimed insufficient due process during an infraction hearing, which led to his transfer to punitive segregation at Rikers Island. He also alleged cruel and unusual punishment during transport to court, resulting in injuries. The court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion to dismiss, dismissing Best's equal-protection and deliberate-indifference claims without prejudice but allowing his due-process claim to proceed. The court noted that Best's detention was plausibly punitive, not administrative, requiring the protections of Wolff v. McDonnell.

Civil Rights42 U.S.C. § 1983Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentEighth AmendmentPretrial DetaineePunitive SegregationMotion to DismissDeliberate IndifferenceEqual Protection
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2006

Ferrero v. Best Modular Homes, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied her motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against Best Modular Homes, Inc., and denied her cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Michael and Amy Bellomo. The Supreme Court also granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims against the Bellomos and Best Modular. The action arose from the wrongful death of the plaintiff's decedent, an employee of Lawn Ranger, Inc., who fell while cutting a tree on property owned by the Bellomos, who had contracted with Best Modular. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the decedent was not engaged in an enumerated activity under Labor Law § 240(1) and that the homeowner exemption applied to the Bellomos as they did not direct or control the work. Furthermore, neither the Bellomos nor Best Modular were liable under Labor Law § 200 as the accident stemmed from the subcontractor's methods, and a triable issue of fact existed regarding proximate causation for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim.

wrongful deathlabor law violationssummary judgmentappellate reviewpremises liabilityconstruction accidenthomeowner exemptioncontractor liabilitystatutory interpretationproximate causation
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. v. Pross

This case concerns a breach of contract action for swimming pool construction. The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that one of the plaintiff corporations, Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., lacked the required Nassau County home improvement license. Plaintiffs, Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. and Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., both owned by Jairo Arango, operated together, with Best Quality holding the necessary license. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that denying payment would be an excessive penalty given that Best Quality was licensed, aligning with the rationale of Marraccini v Ryan. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint to include the licensing details for Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc.

Home Improvement LicenseCorporate LiabilityBreach of ContractMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintNassau County Administrative CodeCPLR 3015(e)Licensing RequirementsCorporate VeilSubstantial Compliance
References
8
Case No. ADJ850295 (GRO 0035125)
Regular
May 24, 2010

Corey Abel vs. BEST BUY COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted Best Buy's petition for removal, rescinding the administrative law judge's order closing discovery and setting trial. Defendant Best Buy argued the judge erred by closing discovery before a crucial deposition of the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Strait, which was scheduled to clarify inconsistencies and permanent disability opinions. The Board found the deposition necessary for a complete record and to facilitate a fair decision or potential settlement. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, including completion of the AME's deposition.

Petition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorDepositionClosing DiscoveryRescind OrderLumbar Spine InjuryStock ClerkPermanent DisabilityWhole Person ImpairmentUnorthodox Basis
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. No. 09 Civ. 10155
Regular Panel Decision

Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC

Plaintiffs, Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen, initiated a copyright infringement action in 2009 against several electronics distributors, including Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC (WDE), for their use of the BusyBox software. In 2010, the court issued a default judgment and a permanent injunction against WDE. The current motion by plaintiffs seeks to hold Westinghouse Digital LLC (WD), a non-party, in contempt of this earlier injunction. The court determined that WD is a successor in interest to WDE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) due to substantial continuity of identity, and is therefore bound by the injunction. WD's defenses, including a prior FCC order and fair use, were rejected by the court. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to hold WD in contempt, deferring the decision on specific damages and attorneys' fees pending further submissions from the parties.

Copyright InfringementContempt of CourtInjunctionSuccessor LiabilityRule 65(d)Fair Use DoctrineBusyBox SoftwareOpen SourceDefault JudgmentFCC Order
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 384 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