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
Jul 19, 2001

LaBarbera v. C. Volante Corp.

This action, brought under the Labor Management Relations Act and ERISA, sought recovery of delinquent pension fund contributions from October 1, 1993, to June 30, 1997. The court previously granted default judgment against C. Volante Corp. and C. Volante Trucking Corp. Plaintiffs, trustees of Local 282 Funds, moved for summary judgment against the remaining defendant, Vital Trucking Corp. The court found C. Volante Corp. liable for contributions based on its course of conduct, adopting collective bargaining agreements. C. Volante Trucking Corp. was found jointly liable under the 'single employer' theory due to shared operations, management, and ownership with C. Volante Corp. Vital Trucking Corp. was found jointly and severally liable under the 'alter ego' theory, as it was formed shortly after Volante/Trucking ceased operations, sharing substantially identical business purpose, equipment, customers, and management with the Volante family, indicating an attempt to avoid CBA obligations. The court denied Vital's motion for summary judgment and granted plaintiffs' motion, adopting the Magistrate Judge's recommendation for damages.

Labor Management Relations ActEmployee Retirement Income Security ActPension Fund ContributionsDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentSingle Employer DoctrineAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion Labor
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp.

Plaintiff General Motors Corp. ("GM") obtained a preliminary injunction against defendants Roth and Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp. for trademark infringement related to "Dexron" automatic transmission fluid. Subsequently, defendants moved the court to permit them to repackage and sell the impounded, allegedly infringing goods, or alternatively, to have GM remove the goods from their warehouse, citing health and safety hazards. GM opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion seeking an order holding defendants in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction by distributing a brochure displaying the "Dexron" mark at a trade show. The Court denied defendants' motions to repackage, sell, or remove the goods. While finding defendants technically in civil contempt for the brochure distribution, the Court decided against immediate sanctions, noting the violation appeared inadvertent and GM had not yet demonstrated actual damages, but ordered defendants to provide an accounting and allowed GM to present proof of damages at trial.

Trademark InfringementPreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtCivil ContemptRepackaging of GoodsImpoundment OrderAdvertising ViolationCompensatory DamagesSanctionsTrade Show Brochure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. Expromtorg International Corp.

The case involves a breach of contract action filed by General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (GTP), a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City, against Expromtorg International Corp. and its president, Guennadi Razouvaev, both Michigan residents. The defendants moved to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the original sales notes (OSN), and also sought to dismiss claims against Razouvaev for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff GTP opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion to stay arbitration, arguing that a later, unsigned settlement stipulation had supplanted the arbitration agreement and that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate through litigation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Razouvaev, finding a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil based on alleged fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the Court denied GTP's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitration agreement in the OSN remained effective and that no waiver of arbitration had occurred, thus granting defendants' motion to stay the entire action pending arbitration.

Breach of ContractArbitrationPersonal JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingWaiver of ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSales NotesSettlement StipulationAlter Ego Doctrine
References
50
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08009
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2018

Giannas v. 100 3rd Ave. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ioannis Giannas, allegedly sustained personal injuries while working on a renovation project, claiming he fell from a scaffold that shifted. He sued alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against 100 3rd Avenue Corp. and JF Contracting Corp., and granted JF's motion to dismiss the complaint against it. The Supreme Court also denied Rockledge Scaffolding Corp.'s motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim against it and its contractual indemnification cross-claim against JF. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding a triable issue of fact regarding the accident's cause for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and concluding that JF lacked the requisite supervisory control for Labor Law liability. The court further affirmed the denial of Rockledge's motions due to a triable issue of fact concerning negligent scaffold installation, which precluded summary judgment on both the common-law negligence claim and the contractual indemnification cross-claim.

scaffolding accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)common-law negligencecontractual indemnificationconstruction manager liabilitysummary judgmenttriable issue of factagencysupervisory control
References
13
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04681
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Fidler v. Gordon-Herricks Corp.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning a personal injury action filed by Robert Fidler against Gordon-Herricks Corp. and F. Pinheiro Contractor Corp. Fidler appealed the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment to defendant F. Pinheiro Contractor Corp. The Supreme Court had previously granted summary judgment to other defendants, citing the "law of the case" doctrine for Pinheiro. The Appellate Division found the "law of the case" doctrine inapplicable to Pinheiro, as the prior dismissals were based on grounds specific to the other defendants. Nevertheless, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Pinheiro, concluding that Pinheiro, as a third-party contractor, owed no duty to the plaintiff and did not "launch a force or instrument of harm."

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionLaw of the Case DoctrineThird-Party ContractorPremises LiabilityDuty (Tort Law)Workers' CompensationNassau CountyLoading Dock Ramp
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pierre v. Crown Fire Protection Corp.

This case involves appeals by Crown Fire Protection Corp. and PEM All Fire Extinguisher Corp. from a Supreme Court order denying their motions for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful death complaint asserted against them. The New York City Transit Authority also cross-appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss third-party complaints filed against it. The appellate court dismissed the appeals of Crown and PEM as withdrawn. Furthermore, the order was modified to grant the Transit Authority's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the third-party complaint of Crown Fire Protection Corp. The court determined that Crown's work, which involved delivery and installation of fire extinguisher devices, did not fall under the categories described in General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Finally, the decision clarified that a recent amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits third-party suits against employers, would not be applied retroactively to pending actions.

Wrongful Death DamagesSummary Judgment DenialThird-Party IndemnificationGeneral Obligations Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation AmendmentsStatutory Non-RetroactivityContractual IndemnityConstruction vs. InstallationAppellate ModificationDismissal of Appeals
References
3
Case No. VEN 0115536
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

ROBERT FROELICH vs. CONTRACTORS LABOR POOL, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCATION, RELIANCE NATIONAL INSURANCE CO., GM NORTHROP CORP., NATIONAL FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY OF HARTFORD

This case concerns a dispute over workers' compensation liability following an industrial injury sustained by an employee who was a general employee of Contractors Labor Pool (insured by insolvent Reliance) and a special employee of GM Northrup Corp. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to reverse a prior finding, determining that National Fire Insurance Company's policy for GM Northrup Corp. constituted "other insurance." Consequently, National Fire Insurance Company is now liable for the applicant's benefits, and the California Insurance Guarantee Association is not liable as the claim is not a "covered claim."

CIGAReliance National InsuranceNational Fire Insurance Companycovered claimsother insurancegeneral employerspecial employerjoint and several liabilitypolicy constructionInsurance Code section 1063.1
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00959 [147 AD3d 815]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Gonsalves v. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp.

The plaintiffs, Andrew Gonsalves and Shahazad M. Rasheed, sustained personal injuries at a construction site managed by Geiger Construction Company, Inc. and owned by 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. when a parapet wall collapsed during the lowering of a power washer. They sued 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. and Perimeter Bridge & Scaffold Co. for Labor Law violations. 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. then initiated third-party actions against Geiger Construction for contribution and common-law indemnification. After a jury found Geiger Construction negligent, the Supreme Court denied Geiger Construction's motions for judgment as a matter of law. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed these judgments, concluding that there was no rational basis for the jury to find Geiger Construction negligent, as 35 W. 54 Realty Corp. failed to establish a prima facie case of negligence against them. Consequently, the third-party causes of action against Geiger Construction were dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawNegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewJudgment as a Matter of LawJury Verdict
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheppard v. Blitman/Atlas Building Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment that initially favored the plaintiff, apportioning liability between Turner Construction Corp. (30%) and Northberry Corp. (70%). The appellate court modified the judgment, vacating the awards for past and future lost earnings and future pain and suffering, and remanded these for a new trial unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced award. The court also limited Turner's indemnification by Northberry to costs not covered by Turner's own insurance. Procedurally, the court affirmed the jury's liability apportionment, upheld a Workers' Compensation Board's finding on the plaintiff's back injury, and allowed Turner to amend its third-party complaint for breach of contract to procure insurance. Finally, the court granted reargument and recalled and vacated its prior Decision and Order from December 19, 2000.

Jury Verdict ReviewLiability ApportionmentDamages AssessmentLost EarningsPain and SufferingIndemnification ClauseBreach of Contract (Insurance)Third-Party ClaimWorkers' Compensation DeterminationAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1999

Sheppard v. Blitman / Atlas Building Corp.

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, concerning a plaintiff's personal injury sustained on a construction site. A jury found defendant Turner Construction Corp. 30% liable and third-party defendant Northberry Corp. 70% liable after the plaintiff slipped on ice covered by ash. The court modified the jury's award for past and future lost earnings and future pain and suffering, deeming them excessive, and remanded for a new trial on these damages unless the plaintiff stipulates to a reduced award. The court affirmed the liability apportionment. Additionally, the decision addressed Northberry's failure to procure insurance for defendants, the preclusive effect of a Workers' Compensation Board determination on causation, proper amendment of pleadings for cross-claims, and the admissibility of a union witness's testimony regarding pension plans.

Personal injuryConstruction accidentPremises liabilityJury verdict reviewDamages modificationLiability apportionmentThird-party liabilityInsurance contract breachCollateral estoppelProcedural law
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,229 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