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
Apr 11, 1991

Gold v. Local Union No. 888

Leonard Gold, an employee for 29 years, was terminated by John Hancock Mutual Life Insurance Company following accusations of theft from a policyholder. Gold denied the allegations, attributing them to the policyholder's senility. The United Food and Commercial Workers International Union and Local Union No. 888, UFCW-AFL-CIO, represented Gold through the grievance process but ultimately withdrew their intent to arbitrate after an allegedly inadequate investigation by union official Andre Henault. Gold filed an action alleging breach of collective bargaining agreement by the Company and breach of the duty of fair representation by the union. The court denied John Hancock's motion for summary judgment, finding sufficient facts for a jury to infer the union handled Gold's grievance arbitrarily. Additionally, the court granted the union's motion to dismiss John Hancock's cross-claim, which was filed after the union settled with Gold, ruling it was barred.

duty of fair representationsummary judgmentgrievance processarbitrationcollective bargaining agreementwrongful terminationlabor lawunion settlementcross-claimfederal civil procedure
References
16
Case No. ADJ4352428 (SJO 0247037)
Regular
May 28, 2009

CANDACE GOLD vs. ARH RECOVERY HOMES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by Candace Gold. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reviewed the petition and the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's report. Finding no grounds for review, the Board denied the petition for reconsideration. The decision was officially filed and served on May 28, 2009.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDReconsideration DeniedWCJ Report AdoptedADJ4352428ARH RECOVERY HOMESSTATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUNDCANDACE GOLDORDER DENYING RECONSIDERATIONRONNIE G. CAPLANEJ. A. Klee
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spodick v. Gold

The plaintiff, International, brought an action against Local 210 of the International Brotherhood of Teamsters and individual defendants Gold and Berger, seeking an accounting, money judgment, and equitable relief. The plaintiff claimed Local 8, a former affiliate, was indebted for unpaid per capita tax and disaffiliated to merge with Local 210. The court found no basis for accounting or equitable relief, stating the relationship was a simple debtor-creditor one and Local 8's actions were in its members' interests. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants as derivative. All causes of action were deemed insufficient, and the motions for dismissal were granted, allowing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint solely against Local 210 based on a theory of assumption of debt.

Dismissal of ComplaintInsufficiency of ComplaintAmended ComplaintUnion DisaffiliationUnion MergerPer Capita TaxDebtor-Creditor RelationshipEquitable Relief DeniedDerivative LiabilityAssumption of Debt Theory
References
4
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04651 [197 AD3d 540]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2021

Alberici v. Gold Medal Gymnastics

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff, Donald Alberici, was injured during the installation of an electrical sign on a building leased by Gold Medal Gymnastics and owned by Madison Parker, LLC, when a section of the soffit gave way, causing him to fall 15 feet. The plaintiffs alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, denying the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that the plaintiff was not engaged in "altering" or "construction" under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), and that Madison Parker failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective soffit for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceAppellate DivisionSuffolk CountyConstruction WorkAltering a Building
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 1959

Spodick v. Cohen

The order dismissing the amended complaint against defendants Frank Gold and Benjamin Berger was unanimously reversed. The fourth cause of action alleged that Gold and Berger wrongfully misappropriated and converted monies for their own use and benefit. The original dismissal was based on the theory that the defendants acted in their official capacity and thus no suit could be brought until a judgment against the 'local' was secured. However, the court found that the complaint sufficiently charged the defendants with wrongs committed by them as individuals, making them liable for conversion. Therefore, the cause of action was deemed sufficient as pleaded.

amended complaintconversionindividual liabilityofficial capacitymotion deniedcosts awardedwrongful misappropriationappellantreversed on law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gold v. Intersoft Corp.

Plaintiff Gold initiated an action for declaratory judgment and libel against defendant Alkoff, his attorneys, and Intersoft Corp. The libel claim stemmed from a letter sent by Alkoff's attorney to Intersoft's board, accusing Gold of misrepresentations, conflicting interests, and breaches of fiduciary duty, anticipating a future derivative action. The defendants moved to dismiss the libel claims, asserting that the communication was protected by absolute privilege, being preliminary to judicial proceedings. The court examined the scope of absolute privilege under New York law, contrasting it with the broader Restatement of Torts. It concluded that the March 13 letter was not pertinent to any currently pending litigation and, despite its potential as a prerequisite for a future lawsuit, did not warrant absolute privilege under New York's restrictive interpretation. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the libel cause of action was denied.

DefamationLibelAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeShareholder Derivative ActionBusiness Corporation LawFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
21
Case No. ADJ8573949
Regular
Apr 02, 2015

JERRY GOLDING (Decedent), PETRA GOLDING (Widow) vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES FIRE DEPARTMENT; TRISTAR

The applicant, widow of Jerry Golding, sought reconsideration of a denial of temporary disability benefits for her deceased husband after his retirement. The Board granted reconsideration, finding that although the decedent retired voluntarily due to the DROP program, evidence showed his intent to work as an arson investigator post-retirement. The Board determined that the worsening of his industrial injury prevented this post-retirement work, establishing an earning capacity diminished by the injury. Therefore, the Board awarded temporary total disability indemnity from March 1, 2011, to July 18, 2012, and remanded for rate determination and attorney fees.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTemporary Disability IndemnityEarning CapacityRetirementIndustrial InjuryPulmonary FibrosisArson InvestigatorDROP ProgramDeferred Retirement Option Plan
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haggerty v. Comstock Gold Co., LP

This case involves plaintiffs who invested in limited partnership shares of Comstock Gold Company, L.P., seeking to mine gold and silver. The project failed, leading plaintiffs to sue for federal securities fraud under § 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, along with pendent state law claims. Plaintiffs alleged material misstatements and omissions in the offering memoranda. The court granted summary judgment for the moving defendants, ruling that the offering documents contained numerous warnings ("bespoke caution") regarding the high-risk and speculative nature of the investment. It further found that sophisticated investors like the plaintiffs could not have reasonably relied on the projections, and that disclosures about the use of funds for exploration, not production, were clear. Consequently, the federal claims were dismissed, and the pendent state law claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Securities FraudSummary JudgmentPrivate PlacementLimited PartnershipSpeculative InvestmentRisk DisclosureBespeaks Caution DoctrineMaterial MisstatementMaterial OmissionPendent Jurisdiction
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ruffing v. Union Carbide Corp.

The plaintiffs, Candace Curtis and Heather Curtis, appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The first order denied their motion to amend the complaint to add fraud-based causes of action, and the second denied their motion for leave to reargue. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order denying reargument, as such orders are not appealable. However, the court modified the August 3, 2001, order by granting infant plaintiff Candace Curtis leave to assert causes of action for fraudulent misrepresentation, constructive fraud, fraudulent concealment, and negligent misrepresentation. This decision was based on the principle that fraud can exist even when misrepresentations are made to a third party (the mother) but result in injury to the plaintiff (the infant). The court affirmed the denial of the motion to amend for Heather Curtis on statute of limitations grounds related to her negligence claims.

Personal InjuryFraudulent MisrepresentationConstructive FraudFraudulent ConcealmentNegligent MisrepresentationPrenatal InjuriesFetusEmployer LiabilityStatute of LimitationsAmendment of Complaint
References
37
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03149 [238 AD3d 619]
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2025

Sarante v. Courtlandt Dev., LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified an order from Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning a construction worker's injury. Plaintiff Jose Sarante was injured when a chain block pulley system, used to hoist a steel beam, collapsed. The court affirmed partial summary judgment for Sarante on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the pulley system to be a failed safety device. It also affirmed the denial of summary judgment for defendants Courtlandt Development, LLC and AB Capstone Builders Corp. on their Labor Law claims and contractual indemnification claims against third-party defendant Gold Lion Steel, LLC, noting the right to indemnification had not vested. Gold Lion's motions for dismissal of third-party claims were denied due to lack of evidence regarding "grave injury" under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Finally, the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim was dismissed as plaintiff decided not to pursue it.

Labor Law § 240(1)Falling ObjectSafety DeviceChain Block Pulley SystemContractual IndemnificationDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceGrave Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 63 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