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
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Apex Industrial Construction Corp. v. Village of Lake George

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing its complaint for breach of contract and awarding damages to the defendant village on its counterclaim. The plaintiff claimed the village breached the contract by failing to provide a clear construction site, due to a plumbers' union picket line protesting the village's award of plumbing work to a nonunion employer. The court found that the picketing was an act of a third party, not attributable to the village, and that the village lawfully awarded contracts to the lowest responsible bidder, even if nonunion. Therefore, the plaintiff's abandonment of the job constituted a breach of contract, justifying the damages awarded to the village. The judgment was affirmed.

Breach of ContractConstruction LawLabor DisputePicket LineNonunion EmployerMunicipal ContractsLowest Responsible BidderContract AbandonmentDamages AwardedThird-Party Action
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1997

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed a class action grievance against the County of Nassau on behalf of five Construction Inspector Trainees whose employment was terminated in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. An advisory arbitrator recommended in favor of the CSEA, but the County Executive overturned this decision. CSEA and the individual employees then initiated proceedings under CPLR articles 75 and 78, and sought damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR proceedings and individual breach of contract claims, while allowing CSEA to pursue its breach of contract claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the advisory arbitrator's recommendation was not binding and that CPLR article 78 was not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceAdvisory ArbitrationCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Breach of ContractPublic EmployeesEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewNassau County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2001

Vitale v. Buttafuoco & Associates

The plaintiff initiated an action against the defendant, seeking damages for breach of contract. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff had established her entitlement to judgment as a matter of law. The court agreed with the Supreme Court's conclusion that the defendant, who had represented the plaintiff in a prior negligence lawsuit, improperly included a portion of a waived workers' compensation lien as part of its contingency fee. This action was deemed a breach of the retainer agreement and a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 24. The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was also properly denied.

Breach of contractContingency feeWorkers' Compensation lienSummary judgmentRetainer agreementAppellate reviewLegal feesAttorney misconductWaiver of lienNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Koko Contracting, Inc.

Koko Contracting, Inc., a subcontractor, ceased work on a school construction project after U.W. Marx, Inc., the general contractor, failed to make three successive progress payments. Marx declared Koko in default and terminated the contract. In action No. 2, the Supreme Court found in favor of Koko, ruling that Marx's failure to pay was a material breach of contract. Marx and its surety, Continental Casualty Company, appealed, arguing Koko's recovery was precluded by its failure to provide seven days' written notice before suspending work as required by the subcontract. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Marx's prior material breach relieved Koko from its obligation to strictly comply with the notice provision, as the clause was primarily for the subcontractor's benefit regarding remobilization costs.

Construction ContractMaterial BreachNonpaymentSubcontractorGeneral ContractorAppealNotice to CureSuspension of WorkContract PerformanceContractual Obligations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America v. Lee National Corp.

This suit was brought by an international union against an employer for alleged breaches of collective bargaining contracts concerning employees at the Company’s former Conshohocken and Youngstown plants. The Union's second claim sought arbitration or $2 million for a special distribution upon discontinuance of operations. The third claim sought $2 million for alleged breach of contract due to the discontinuance of a life insurance plan for retired employees or arbitration. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment to dismiss the arbitration claim within the second cause of action but denied the motion regarding the merits of that claim. The court entirely granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the third cause of action concerning the life insurance plan for retired employees.

Collective Bargaining AgreementContract BreachSummary Judgment MotionArbitration RightsSeverance PayLife Insurance BenefitsRetired EmployeesPlant ClosureLabor LawUnion Dispute
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2003

Miller v. Huntington Hospital

This case involves an appeal by the defendants from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion to dismiss a complaint alleging breach of contract and negligence. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the defendants' motion and dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff was an at-will employee, and the employer's personnel handbook contained an explicit disclaimer, thus precluding a breach of contract claim. Furthermore, the negligence claim was deemed barred by the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, as it did not allege an intentional or deliberate act by the employer directed at causing harm to the employee.

at-will employmentbreach of contractnegligenceWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211motion to dismissemployment handbookdisclaimerintentional tortexclusivity provision
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirkin & Gordon, P. C. v. Suffolk County-Local 852 Civil Service Employees Ass'n Legal Services Fund

This case involves an appeal by the Legal Services Fund (defendant) from an order denying its motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint filed by a law firm (plaintiff). The plaintiff law firm sued the Legal Services Fund for breach of retainer agreements and non-payment for services. The defendant sought dismissal based on res judicata, arguing that a prior federal lawsuit, which was dismissed on the merits, barred the state action. The federal action, filed by the plaintiff law firm against county legislators and welfare fund trustees, alleged a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983 by terminating their retainer. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the dismissal motion. This appellate decision affirms that denial, concluding that res judicata does not apply because the parties and claims in the federal and state actions were not identical, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the contract claims against the Legal Services Fund.

Breach of ContractRes JudicataClaim PreclusionFederal Court JurisdictionState Court ActionDismissalAppellate ReviewCivil Rights (42 USC § 1983)Legal ServicesLaw Firm Retainer
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,676 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