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

De La Cruz v. Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co.

This case addresses whether municipal vessels qualify as "public works" under Labor Law § 220 and Article I, § 17 of the New York State Constitution, thereby mandating prevailing wages for workers involved in their construction, maintenance, or repair. Plaintiffs, employees of Caddell Dry Dock & Repair Co., Inc., sued their employer and its sureties, asserting that they were third-party beneficiaries to contracts between Caddell and New York City agencies for work on various municipal vessels, including Staten Island Ferries and fireboats. The lower courts had dismissed the complaint, citing prior precedent, but the Court of Appeals reversed this decision. The Court established a new three-prong test for determining if a project is a "public work": (1) a public agency must be a party to a contract involving laborers, (2) the contract must involve construction-like labor paid by public funds, and (3) the primary objective of the work must benefit the general public. Applying this test, the Court concluded that municipal vessels serving the general public's use or benefit are indeed "public works," thus granting the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on liability.

Public works doctrinePrevailing wage lawLabor LawState Constitutional LawMunicipal vesselsStaten Island FerryFireboatsPublic benefitConstruction laborPublic funds
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 2006

In re Tower Automotive, Inc.

Federal Insurance Company objected to a Bankruptcy Court order that recommended granting summary judgment to Tower Automotive, Inc. on Federal's obligation to pay defense costs for ERISA actions. Tower commenced the action seeking a declaration of insurance coverage for lawsuits related to its employee benefit plans. Federal denied coverage, citing an exclusion in its Fiduciary Liability Policy after Securities Actions were filed. The District Court, applying Michigan law, found both parties' interpretations of the exclusion reasonable but, due to ambiguity, construed the clause against Federal. Consequently, the District Court overruled Federal's objections and granted summary judgment in favor of Tower, affirming Federal's duty to defend.

ERISAFiduciary Liability InsuranceInsurance Coverage DisputeDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentPolicy Exclusion InterpretationContract LawMichigan Insurance LawFederal Court ReviewBankruptcy Court Findings
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graff v. United Collection Bureau, Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses a class action lawsuit filed by Thomas Graff against United Collection Bureau, Inc. under the FDCPA. The parties sought final certification of a class action and approval of a cy pres settlement. The proposed settlement included payments to a public interest organization, the representative plaintiff, administration costs, and attorneys' fees. However, one class member objected to various aspects, including the scope of the release and the class's geographic scope. The court ultimately denied final approval of the settlement, citing concerns with the broad release, the unexplained expansion of the class size without commensurate benefit, and the exclusive cy pres remedy, while upholding the magistrate judge's jurisdiction. The court also modified the class to be limited solely to the New York class.

Class Action SettlementFDCPA LitigationMagistrate Judge JurisdictionCy Pres RemedyDebt Collection PracticesRule 23(e) ReviewProcedural FairnessSubstantive FairnessScope of ReleaseClass Definition
References
48
Case No. 13-CV-675
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2016

Pierre v. Planet Automotive, Inc.

Plaintiff Ghislaine Pierre sued Planet Automotive, Inc. and American Suzuki Financial Services alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act (MMWA), and state law claims of fraud and false advertising arising from her vehicle purchase and its financing. Defendant Suzuki moved for summary judgment. The Court denied Suzuki's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's TILA claim and state law claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding TILA disclosures and applying New York's assignee liability law for state claims. However, the Court granted Suzuki's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's MMWA claim, concluding that the MMWA prohibits assignee liability where the assignee did not create the written warranty.

TILA violationMagnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty ActCommon law fraudFalse advertisingSummary judgmentAssignee liabilityRetail Installment ContractVehicle purchaseFinance chargesDisclosure statement
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. Coastal Dry Dock & Repair Corp.

This case concerns an appeal by Hartford Accident and Indemnity Co. (insurer) against Coastal Dry Dock and Repair Corp. (insured) regarding unpaid retrospective premiums on a workers' compensation policy. The insurer sought to recover additional premiums calculated based on the insured's loss record, as stipulated by a 'Retrospective Premium Endorsement.' The defendant raised multiple defenses and counterclaims, alleging improper calculations, misrepresentation, and mishandling of claims. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that the defendant's opposition, primarily an attorney's affidavit lacking personal knowledge, was insufficient to raise a genuine issue of material fact. The court found the defendant's defenses and counterclaims legally insufficient, affirming the insurer's contractual right to negotiate and settle claims.

Workers' Compensation PolicyRetrospective PremiumSummary JudgmentContract DisputeInsurance LawAppellate ReviewAffidavit SufficiencyEvidentiary FactsClaims SettlementPolicy Interpretation
References
6
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05114 [129 AD3d 525]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2015

Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Union of Automotive Technicians

This case involves an appeal regarding an arbitration award concerning an E-Z Pass benefit for retired members of the Union of Automotive Technicians. The Supreme Court, New York County, modified the arbitration award to rule that the E-Z Pass benefit is a vested lifetime benefit. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, citing its disposition in previous appeals with similar issues. The court concluded that the Supreme Court reached the correct result based on established precedent.

Arbitration AwardE-Z Pass BenefitVested Lifetime BenefitPublic Employee UnionCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial PrecedentMemorandum of AgreementLabor DisputeAffirmance
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Automotive Service Systems, Inc.

Automotive Service Systems, Inc., a company dispatching drivers, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that assessed it for additional unemployment insurance contributions totaling $19,754.76. The Board had determined that an employment relationship existed between Automotive and its drivers. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Automotive exercised sufficient control over its drivers' work, including setting payment terms, providing trip sheets, dictating attire and vehicle type, and handling customer complaints, thereby supporting the conclusion that the drivers were employees.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorControl TestAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDriversDispatch ServicesLabor LawEmployer Contributions
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 448 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