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. 103 B.R. 416
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 1989

Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers (In Re Ionosphere Clubs, Inc.)

The court issued findings of fact and conclusions of law, granting a preliminary injunction against the IAM for their unlawful strike activities targeting Eastern Air Lines at LaGuardia and Hartsfield Airports. The enjoined conduct includes trespassing, mass picketing, harassment, violence, and vandalism against Eastern's employees, customers, and property. The court found that these actions caused substantial and irreparable harm to Eastern and that public authorities were unable or unwilling to provide adequate protection. While the injunction imposed strict restrictions on these disruptive behaviors, the court denied Eastern's request to enjoin residential picketing, citing the Norris-LaGuardia Act. This decision aims to balance the unions' right to strike with Eastern's need to continue operations and protect its assets and personnel during the Chapter 11 reorganization.

Preliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeAirline IndustryStrike ActivityUnlawful ConductMass PicketingHarassmentVandalismUnion LiabilityNorris-LaGuardia Act
References
116
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2006

Amantia v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor's worker, sued defendants for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence after falling from a cargo truck while unloading forms. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting defendants' motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. It found Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as there was no significant elevation risk, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, based on specific industrial code violations, were also dismissed due to their inapplicability to the facts.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from ElevationWorker SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. CV 85-1664 (LDW)
Regular Panel Decision

Benvenuto v. Schneider

The case concerns the Allied Security Health & Welfare Fund and its former trustees, Daniel Cunningham and Nunzio Nicolosi, who breached their ERISA fiduciary duties. They imprudently contracted with the law firm Schneider & Taubman for a prepaid legal plan, leading to excessive payments for inadequate services. The law firm and its partner, Irwin Schneider, were found to have knowingly participated in these breaches and benefited from the overpayments. The court held all defendants jointly and severally liable to the Fund for an overpayment of $292,800. Additionally, pre-judgment interest and attorney's fees were awarded to the plaintiffs.

ERISAFiduciary DutyBreach of Fiduciary DutyEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanPrepaid Legal ServicesExcessive FeesJoint and Several LiabilityTrustee MisconductLabor LawCivil Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merton Co. v. PepsiCo Inc.

The Merton Company, Ltd. sued PepsiCo Inc. for breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. Merton alleged that PepsiCo's representatives, through vague statements, induced them to produce toy components for a 'Pepsi Gang' promotional project, for which Merton was never paid. The court, applying British contract law based on New York conflict of law principles, found no enforceable contract due to a lack of certainty and essential terms. Furthermore, it determined that no 'special relationship' existed between Merton and PepsiCo to support a claim of negligent misrepresentation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of PepsiCo.

Contract DisputeNegligent MisrepresentationInternational BusinessCorporate LiabilityConflict of LawsBritish LawHong Kong LawDue DiligenceAgencyPromotional Products
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ehret v. New York City Department of Social Services

The case involves Gerard Ehret, Veronica Donovan, and their daughter Margo Ehret, who sued the New York City Department of Social Services (DSS) and several of its employees and police officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs alleged violations of their constitutional rights to privacy and security of their home after DSS caseworker Addie Grizzel, accompanied by police, forcibly entered their home and temporarily removed their infant daughter Margo following an anonymous child abuse complaint. The court found that Mr. Ehret's irrational and violent behavior, coupled with his refusal to allow Ms. Grizzel to assess the child's safety, created an emergency situation. Consequently, the defendants' actions, including the forced entry and temporary removal of the child, were deemed reasonable and justified under state law (Social Services Law § 417 and Family Court Act § 1024) due to the perceived imminent danger to the child. The court also noted Mr. Ehret's history of paranoid schizophrenia and alcoholism, and his use of racial slurs against the Black social worker and police officer. The plaintiffs failed to prove any psychological injury or constitutional rights violations, leading to a judgment in favor of the defendants with costs.

Child AbuseChild Protective ServicesFourth AmendmentExigent CircumstancesPolice InterventionSocial Worker DiscretionFamily Court ActDue ProcessOfficial MisconductPsychological Injury
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Turchioe v. AT&T Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff, a laborer, sustained a back injury while manually transporting a heavy ductlift up a stairway with a co-worker, alleging the co-worker crouched and shifted the full weight onto him. The initial order granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified this, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, including all cross claims and third-party actions. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed as the lifting activity was not a 'special hazard'. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked evidence of lighting violations or causation by debris. The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed due to the absence of supervisory control by the owner or general contractor over the work.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentThird-Party ClaimsCommon Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityWorker Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strangio v. Sevenson Environmental Services, Inc.

The dissenting opinion argues that the plaintiff's injury, caused by a malfunctioning scaffold device leading to an 'unchecked descent' of the scaffold platform and uncontrolled crank handle movement, is directly embraced by Labor Law § 240 (1). The dissenting judges disagree with the majority's conclusion that the accident was only tangentially connected to gravity, asserting that the harm was a direct consequence of gravity's application to the cranking mechanism. They emphasize that this case falls under a well-recognized variant of a 'falling object' case under Labor Law § 240 (1) and does not require the worker to have fallen or been hit by the object. Therefore, they would modify the order to deny summary judgment for the defendants and reinstate the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentFalling ObjectGravitySummary JudgmentReinstatement of ClaimDissenting OpinionMalfunctioning DeviceCrank HandleWorker Safety
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 14,735 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