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. Docket Nos. 41, 42, 47, 48, 50, 63, 44, 45, 57-59, 52, 53, 65, 66, 60, 61
Regular Panel Decision

TC Systems Inc. v. Town of Colonie, New York

This case involves a dispute between telecommunications service providers (Plaintiffs, including TC Systems Incorporated) and the Town of Colonie concerning Local Law No. 13 of 1999. Plaintiffs contend that this law, which imposes a five percent gross revenue fee for the use of public rights-of-way, violates the Telecommunications Act of 1996 and Section 99 of the New York Public Service Law. The Town of Colonie counterclaimed, alleging a violation of Local Law No. 13 and Section 27 of the New York Transportation Corporations Law by TC Systems. Presiding Magistrate Judge Treece addressed multiple motions to exclude expert testimony. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motions to preclude testimony from Dennis J. O’Donnell and Leonard Krumm, while partially granting and denying Colonie's motion to exclude Patricia Kravtin's testimony, primarily due to impermissible legal conclusions in parts of her report.

Expert TestimonyAdmissibilityTelecommunications Act of 1996Local Law No. 13Gross Revenues FeePublic Rights of WayDaubert StandardFederal Rules of EvidenceRule 702Rule 403
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colonial Acquisition Partnership v. Colonial at Lynnfield, Inc.

This case arises from an unconsummated joint venture between defendant Colonial at Lynnfield, Inc. and plaintiff Colonial Acquisition Partnership (CAP) regarding the sale of limited partnership units for the Colonial Hilton Inn. Plaintiffs alleged federal securities law violations and common law fraud against the defendants. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on grounds including the statute of limitations and res judicata. The court determined that the plaintiffs' federal securities law claim was not time-barred under New York's borrowing statute, applying the 'place of injury' test. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss based on res judicata, finding that a prior Massachusetts action, which concluded with a final judgment against parties in privity with the current plaintiffs and involved the same factual predicate, precluded the federal claim. With the federal claims dismissed, the court also dismissed the remaining state law claims due to a lack of pendent jurisdiction.

Securities LawJoint VentureFraudBreach of ContractRes JudicataStatute of LimitationsPendent JurisdictionPartnership LawCorporate DisputeCivil Procedure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colonial Super Markets, Inc. v. Liss

Plaintiffs (Colonial Super Markets, Hy-Co Supermarkets, Marcaro, Inc.), three separate retail food stores affiliated as "Bells," sued defendant labor unions (Teamsters Local 558 and Food Store Employees 34) and their officers for a permanent injunction against picketing and for money damages. The plaintiffs moved for injunctive relief pendente lite. The unions began picketing plaintiffs' stores, claiming employees were non-union. Subsequently, Retail Clerks Local No. 212 organized plaintiffs' employees, and plaintiffs signed a recognition agreement with Local No. 212. Despite this, Teamsters Local No. 558 continued picketing, and Local No. 34 later rejoined. Plaintiffs argued the picketing's unlawful objective was to coerce them into recognizing the defendant unions and breach their contract with Local No. 212, constituting interference with contractual relations. Defendants asserted lawful organizational picketing and that the dispute fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court concluded that the picketing's real purpose was unlawful coercion and to induce contract breach, thus not constituting a "labor dispute" under Civil Practice Act section 876-a. The court also found its jurisdiction not preempted by federal statutes since the activities were not unfair labor practices under federal law. Consequently, the court denied defendants' motions and granted plaintiffs' motions for injunctive relief, with a termination proviso on November 1, 1957.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnlawful Labor ObjectiveCollective BargainingRecognition AgreementJurisdictional DisputeContractual InterferenceState Court JurisdictionPreemption Doctrine
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Risk Reinsurance Co. v. Security Insurance

Petitioners Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited and Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company (collectively “Commercial Risk”) initiated an action to vacate an arbitration award obtained by respondent Security Insurance Company of Hartford (“Security”). Security subsequently cross-moved to confirm the Award. The District Court denied Commercial Risk’s motion to vacate and granted Security’s motion to confirm the Award, finding that Commercial Risk failed to establish sufficient grounds for misconduct by the arbitrators. Commercial Risk then sought reconsideration of this order, arguing improper exclusion of a witness and documents related to damages. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its original decision and emphasizing the broad discretion granted to arbitrators in procedural matters, particularly given the "Honorable Engagement" clause in the parties' agreement.

ArbitrationReinsurance ContractsVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardMotion for ReconsiderationFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationEvidentiary RulingsJudicial ReviewArbitrator Discretion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

474431 Associates v. AXA Global Risks US Insurance

This case involves an appeal by Allcity Insurance Company in a consolidated action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding co-insurance liability between Allcity and AXA Global Risks US Insurance Company. The dispute arose from an underlying action where an injured worker obtained a judgment against a property owner, which was satisfied by the owner's insurer, AIG. AIG then sought reimbursement from the worker's employer's carriers, Allcity (worker's compensation) and AXA (general liability). The Supreme Court initially favored AXA, but the appellate court reversed, holding that AXA's disclaimer of coverage was untimely under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The matter was remitted to declare AXA a co-insurer with Allcity.

Insurance Law § 3420 (d)Disclaimer of CoverageTimely Notice RequirementCo-Insurance DisputeGeneral Liability InsuranceWorker's Compensation InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Court DecisionDeclaratory ReliefPolicy Exclusion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

Monge v. Colony at Hartsdale Condominium

The plaintiff, a porter for Colony at Hartsdale Condominium, suffered personal injuries and initiated a lawsuit against both Colony and its Board of Managers, citing Labor Law § 240. The plaintiff, having received workers' compensation benefits, conceded the dismissal of the claim against Colony due to the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provision. The Board of Managers argued that it shared the same legal entity status with Colony concerning employees, extending the exclusivity defense under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 to them. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment for the Board and dismissed the complaint against it. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to counter the Board's claim of immunity.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law Section 240Exclusivity DefenseCondominium LiabilityEmployer ImmunityBoard of ManagersStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
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

Binyan Shel Chessed, Inc. v. Goldberger Insurance Brokerage, Inc.

The plaintiff initiated an action seeking damages for negligence and a declaration that Colonial Cooperative Insurance Co. must defend and indemnify them for a 1999 incident involving Abraham Katz. The dispute arose after Goldberger Insurance Brokerage, Inc., American Building Corporation's broker, issued a certificate implying Colonial liability coverage for the plaintiff, which Colonial denied, stating no such policy existed. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment motions by both Colonial and Goldberger, deeming them premature. On appeal, the court granted Colonial's motion, dismissing the complaint against it, but affirmed the denial of Goldberger's motion, finding further discovery necessary to address potential fraud concerns regarding the insurance certificate.

NegligenceInsurance LawSummary JudgmentCertificate of InsurancePrivity of ContractFraud ClaimAppellate ReviewInsurance Broker LiabilityAdditional InsuredIndemnification
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 1,483 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