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

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund v. DOREN AVE. ASSOCIATES, INC.

The case involves the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund pursuing withdrawal liability payments from Doren Avenue Associates, Inc., Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC. The Fund alleged these defendants were under common control with or alter egos of Howard’s Express, Inc., a company previously obligated to the Fund. The court ruled that determining the defendants' "employer status" under the MPPAA was a matter for judicial decision, not arbitration. It denied the Fund's motion for summary judgment due to insufficient evidence on the common control and alter ego claims against Express and S&P. Conversely, the court granted the summary judgment motion for Express Services, LLC, and S & P Trucking, LLC, dismissing the complaint against them and terminating related arbitration proceedings, while granting a default judgment against Doren Avenue Associates, Inc.

Pension Withdrawal LiabilityMPPAAERISACommon Control DoctrineAlter Ego LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionFederal Court JurisdictionArbitration TerminationCorporate Ownership StructureEmployee Benefit Plans
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pasqualini v. Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund

This case involves principals of Zodiac Industries, Inc. (Carl, Ann, Frank Pasqualini, and Sarah Lido) who sued the Sheet Metal Workers’ National Pension Fund, the International, and Local 38 over pension service credits. The plaintiffs sought fifteen years of past service credit, which they claimed was promised to them to induce Zodiac to sign a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The Fund denied these credits, citing plan rules. The Court, however, found that 'extraordinary circumstances' warranted applying the principle of estoppel against the Fund. The court ruled in favor of the four owner-members, declaring them entitled to fifteen years of past service credit and ordering the Fund to reconsider their pension applications. Claims brought by other employees and against the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and Local 38 were dismissed.

ERISAPension BenefitsPast Service CreditEstoppelCollective Bargaining AgreementUnion OrganizingContract EnforcementEmployee Benefit PlanFiduciary DutyDistrict Court
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05956 [242 AD3d 1212]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2025

Oliveira v. Rockaway Vil. Hous. Dev. Fund Corp.

The plaintiff, an employee of RC Structures, allegedly tripped over a shovel at a construction site in May 2020 and subsequently sued Rockaway Village Housing Development Fund Corporation (owner) and Lettire Construction Corp. (general contractor) for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 causes of action, and the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2). On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, denying the defendants' motion. The court found that the defendants failed to eliminate all triable issues of fact regarding the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) concerning debris and scattered tools, and whether the shovel was an integral part of the work. Furthermore, the defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that they lacked constructive notice of the dangerous condition for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims.

Construction Site InjuryTrip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law ViolationSafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ProvisionDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2021

Edwards v. State Univ. Constr. Fund

Stephen Edwards was injured during renovations at SUNY Oneonta when he allegedly hit his head on a wooden beam supporting a scaffold and fell down stairs. Edwards and his wife commenced an action against the State University Construction Fund (owner), Fahs Construction Group, Inc. (general contractor), and Tim Duffek Contracting, Inc. (subcontractor), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), common-law negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss by SUCF and Fahs, partially granted Duffek's motion, awarded contractual indemnification to SUCF and Fahs from Ralo Construction, Inc. (Edwards's employer), and denied Ralo's motion to dismiss third-party complaints. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for SUCF and Fahs on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, citing triable issues of fact regarding a dangerous condition and notice. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Duffek. However, it reversed the premature award of contractual indemnification to SUCF and Fahs from Ralo due to unresolved questions of negligence, and granted Ralo's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims.

Construction accidentScaffold injuryDangerous conditionPremises liabilityContractual indemnificationBreach of contractSummary judgmentLabor Law § 200 claimLabor Law § 241(6) claimCommon-law negligence
References
38
Case No. CA 11-00156
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2011

MERCHANTS MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. NEW YORK STATE INSURANCE FUND

Plaintiff, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, initiated an action against New York State Insurance Fund to recover funds related to an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. The core issue was the defendant's obligation to indemnify Jerrick Waterproofing Co., Inc. for a construction accident. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, which the defendant appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant was indeed obligated to provide unlimited coverage to Jerrick Waterproofing, despite a policy exclusion, as a common-law right to indemnity existed. Consequently, the plaintiff's excess coverage was not triggered.

Insurance disputeWorkers' CompensationIndemnificationExcess coverageSummary judgmentAppellate reviewNew York lawEmployer liabilityPolicy exclusionCommon-law indemnity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Refined Sugars, Inc. v. Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund

This case involves Refined Sugars, Inc. (RSI) challenging a withdrawal liability claim brought by the Local 807 Labor-Management Pension Fund and its Board of Trustees under ERISA and MPPAA. RSI filed for a declaratory judgment, arguing it was not an 'employer' subject to such liability. The court analyzed the definition of 'employer' under ERISA Title IV and Title I, concluding that RSI did not meet the criteria, particularly regarding common control with the direct employer, Francrete Corporation. Additionally, the court rejected the application of common law criteria and the joint employer theory. Consequently, RSI's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the defendants' cross-motion was denied, finding RSI not liable for withdrawal contributions.

ERISAMPPAAWithdrawal LiabilityMulti-employer Pension PlanSummary JudgmentEmployer DefinitionCommon ControlIndependent ContractorJoint EmployerPension Fund
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 182 v. New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund

Plaintiff Teamsters Local Union No. 182 (Local 182) filed an action against the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Funds) under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 182 sought a declaration affirming the existence of valid collective bargaining agreements between April 1992 and March 1994, which mandated grievance and arbitration procedures, and an order compelling the Funds to arbitrate layoff-related grievances. The Union contended there was a long-standing oral agreement to adhere to applicable provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). The Funds moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the existence of any agreement with requisite definiteness. The court denied the summary judgment motion, affirming subject matter jurisdiction and finding that Local 182 presented genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor DisputeUnion RightsGrievance ProcedureArbitrationSeniority RightsLayoffsNational Master Freight AgreementPension Benefits
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawthorne v. South Bronx Community Corp.

The case involves an appeal concerning a dispute between two insurers, State Insurance Fund and Zurich-American Insurance Companies, both of whom insured a subcontractor, Bri-Den Construction Co., Inc. The subcontractor was held liable to indemnify an owner and a general contractor for injuries sustained by an employee. State Fund provided coverage for common-law indemnity, while Zurich-American covered contractual indemnity. The central issue was whether a contractual duty to indemnify supersedes a common-law duty, thereby relieving the common-law insurer of its policy obligations. The Appellate Division found that contractual and common-law indemnity liabilities can coexist, meaning an insured with obligations on both grounds is entitled to coverage from both insurers. The court affirmed this decision, ruling that the mere existence of an indemnity provision does not replace common-law liability and both insurers are equally responsible for the loss.

Insurer disputeContractual indemnityCommon-law indemnitySubcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityWorkers' compensationEmployer's liabilityInsurance coverage interpretationCoexisting liabilities
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 6,399 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