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. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fludgate v. Management Technologies, Inc.

Barrington J. Fludgate sued Management Technologies, Inc. (MTI), Winter Partners, Inc. (WP), and Keith Williams, asserting claims under ERISA, New York labor law, and for wrongful interference with his employment agreement. Defendants sought to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and for summary judgment on certain claims. Fludgate moved to amend his complaint and for an extension of time. The court granted defendants' motion to dismiss the ERISA claims, finding Fludgate's employment agreement did not establish an ERISA plan, thus lacking subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, state law claims were also dismissed. However, Fludgate was granted leave to amend his complaint to include claims under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934.

ERISA ClaimsEmployment AgreementWrongful TerminationSubject Matter JurisdictionMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentLeave to AmendSecurities Exchange ActSeverance BenefitsEmployee Pension Benefits
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chisolm v. Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc.

Plaintiff O. Beirne Chisolm filed a federal lawsuit against Kidder, Peabody Asset Management, Inc. and Kidder, Peabody & Co., Inc., alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. This federal action followed a similar state court lawsuit where Chisolm claimed violations of state labor and executive laws, alongside breach of contract. Defendants moved to stay the federal action and compel arbitration, having successfully done so in the parallel state court case. The federal court agreed with the state court's reasoning, granting the motion to compel arbitration, and found that Chisolm's U-4 Form mandated arbitration under NYSE Rules and NASD Code, as his claims arose from his employment. Additionally, the court denied the defendants' requests for Rule 11 and 28 U.S.C. § 1927 sanctions against the plaintiff's counsel, determining that Chisolm's arguments, although ultimately unsuccessful, were not groundless.

Age DiscriminationArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActU-4 FormNYSE RulesNASD ArbitrationEmployment LawSanctionsRule 11Section 1927
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fisher v. SDAM Management, Inc.

Claimant, a taxicab driver, sought workers' compensation benefits after an accident. SDAM Management, Inc. disputed the claim, denying an employer-employee relationship. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge, and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board, found that such a relationship existed between the claimant, SDAM, and its principal John Lewis, citing Lewis's role in licensing and SDAM's in dispatching. SDAM and its carrier appealed these decisions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the Board's factual determination of an employer-employee relationship should not be disturbed.

Employer-employee relationshipTaxicab driverSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewAgency controlWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeFactual determinationPrincipal liabilityBusiness entityAppeal affirmed
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2000

AIU Insurance v. Unicover Managers, Inc.

This case involves plaintiff insurance companies, AIG, seeking a declaration that defendant ReliaStar Life Insurance Company was bound to reinsure AIG for certain workers' compensation risks based on reinsurance slips signed by Unicover Managers, Inc., ReliaStar's managing general underwriter. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed AIG's complaint against ReliaStar and Unicover, and ReliaStar's third-party complaint against E.W. Blanch Company. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding that the parties' correspondence and conduct established that reinsurance would only be bound upon ReliaStar's own signature, negating any actual or apparent authority of Unicover or ratification by ReliaStar. Estoppel and misrepresentation claims against both defendants were also dismissed. The judgment was modified to explicitly dismiss all remaining cross claims and counterclaims, and the initial dismissal was otherwise affirmed.

Reinsurance AgreementSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAgency AuthorityApparent AuthorityRatificationEstoppelMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation RisksCross Claims
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 1993

Olsen v. We'll Manage, Inc.

The case concerns an appeal by We'll Manage, Inc. from an order denying its cross motion for summary judgment in an action brought by plaintiff Gary Olsen under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. We'll Manage, Inc. contended that Olsen was its special employee, providing evidence of direct supervision, work assignments, the right to fire him, and payment signed by its personnel, despite his wages being drawn from a general employer's account. The court found this established a special employment relationship. As Olsen received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer, he is statutorily barred from maintaining an action against the special employer. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted We'll Manage, Inc.'s cross motion, and dismissed the complaint against the appellant.

Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation BarSummary JudgmentLabor LawDirect SupervisionControlAffidavitDeposition TestimonyGeneral EmployerAppellate Reversal
References
6
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. 13-CV-2622
Regular Panel Decision

Dillon v. Ned Management, Inc.

Plaintiff Dillon accused her boss, Yacov Fridman, of sexual harassment, including inappropriate comments and physical contact. She also alleged retaliation after reporting the incidents, citing docked pay and eventual termination by Ned Management. Defendants, Ned Management, Joe Milligan, Eric Vainer, Polina Vainer, and Yacov Fridman, moved for summary judgment, claiming Dillon's termination was due to lateness. The court, presided over by Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment. The ruling determined that sufficient questions of material fact existed regarding hostile work environment, retaliation, and aiding and abetting claims under Title VII and NYCHRL against various defendants, warranting a trial. The claim for sexual assault and battery against Fridman also stands.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIINYCHRLSummary JudgmentFederal Civil RightsIndividual LiabilitySupervisory Liability
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Mortess Johnson, an African-American woman, sued her employer, DELPHI ENERGY and ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., for racial discrimination. She alleged lower wages, lack of promotion, lower classifications, inadequate equipment and training, and being approached about retirement, unlike non-African-American employees, over her thirty-year tenure ending in 1997. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were time-barred and that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as her statistical evidence alone was insufficient and she did not apply for promotions. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding plaintiff's claims regarding a continuing violation were conclusory and her reliance on statistics alone, without proof of applying for promotions, failed to overcome the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her lack of advancement.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentStatistical EvidenceFailure to Promote
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 23,212 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