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

Hodge v. New York College of Podiatric Medicine

Dr. William Hodge, a 67-year-old professor employed by St. John's College since 1973, faced non-renewal of his contract in February 1993, with the defendant citing his high salary. Despite a history of excellent performance reviews and a faculty committee ruling that there was insufficient cause for non-renewal, plaintiff entered into an agreement in April 1994. This agreement stipulated his continued employment until June 30, 1995, in exchange for withdrawing his age discrimination charge with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC). After his contract was not renewed in 1995, Dr. Hodge filed a claim under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) in August 1995. The court granted the defendant's motion to dismiss, deeming the claim time-barred. The court ruled that Dr. Hodge's claim was filed more than 90 days after the termination of the EEOC proceedings, and that by accepting the benefits of the 1994 agreement, he had ratified the contract, making the withdrawal of his EEOC charge effective despite any potential non-compliance with the Older Workers’ Benefits Protection Act (OWBPA) requirements.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ContractNon-renewalEEOCStatute of LimitationsOWBPAWaiverRatificationMotion to DismissFederal Court
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06635
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2017

Hamburg v. New York University School of Medicine

Plaintiff, Carole Hamburg, M.D., sued New York University School of Medicine for age discrimination under the New York City Human Rights Law and for breach of contract after her employment was not renewed. The Supreme Court granted NYU summary judgment on the age discrimination claim but denied it for the breach of contract claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the age discrimination claim, finding no evidence of discriminatory intent in NYU's restructuring and phase-out of the general radiology section. The court further modified the lower court's decision, granting summary judgment to NYU on the breach of contract claim, ruling that Dr. Hamburg was not contractually entitled to a year's notice of non-renewal as her non-tenure-eligible position automatically terminated unless renewed. Consequently, the entire complaint was dismissed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ContractFaculty EmploymentUniversity AdministrationDepartment RestructuringSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationTenure-EligibleNon-Tenure Track
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Webb v. Kenney

Webb, a surgical resident, sued the State University of New York at Stony Brook and its officials after his one-year appointment was not renewed. He alleged due process violations and breach of contract, claiming a property interest in a five-year residency and entitlement to a hearing before non-renewal. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Webb had no federally protected right to re-appointment. The court granted the motion, finding Webb's appointment letter and the Surgical Resident Manual clearly indicated a year-to-year temporary position with renewal at the sole discretion of the department director. The court concluded that due process protections applied only to dismissals during a term, not to the expiration or non-renewal of an annual contract, thus Webb had no legal entitlement to re-appointment or a hearing. Consequently, the court also declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over Webb's state law claims.

Due ProcessProperty InterestEmployment ContractResidency ProgramNon-renewalMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEleventh Amendment ImmunityQualified ImmunityState Law Claims
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Microtech Contracting Corp. v. Mason Tenders District Council of Greater New York

Plaintiff Microtech Contracting Corporation sought a preliminary injunction to stop defendants, including the Mason Tenders District Council and Local 78, from displaying an inflatable rat at its work sites. Microtech argued this conduct violated a 'no-strike' provision in their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The District Court denied the motion, citing a lack of jurisdiction under the Norris-LaGuardia Act because the underlying labor dispute was not subject to mandatory arbitration as per the CBA. The court also held that Section 104 of the Act specifically prohibits injunctions against publicizing labor disputes by non-fraudulent or non-violent means. Furthermore, the court determined that even if jurisdiction existed, the use of the inflatable rat was protected First Amendment speech and did not fall under the 'disruptive activity' clause of the CBA, which was interpreted to apply only to actions similar to work stoppages.

labor disputepreliminary injunctionNorris-LaGuardia Actcollective bargaining agreementFirst Amendmentinflatable ratunion protestno-strike clausearbitrabilityjurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1982

Claim of Lazier v. Zawaski

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision finding National Grange Mutual Insurance Company was the employer's carrier at the time of a claimant's accident. The central issue was whether National Grange successfully terminated its insurance contract with the employer prior to the October 10, 1978 accident. According to Workers' Compensation Law § 54(5), non-renewal requires 30 days' notice to both the employer and the Workers' Compensation Board. While the employer received timely notice of non-renewal, evidence of timely filing with the Board was deemed insufficient. The Board's implied factual finding against National Grange was upheld as supported by substantial evidence, leading to the affirmation of the decision that National Grange was the carrier.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNotice RequirementsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTimely FilingContract TerminationCarrier Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ghent v. Moore

Plaintiff James A. Ghent, Jr., an African-American male, filed suit against his employer, State University of New York (SUNY), and several individual defendants, alleging racial discrimination under federal civil rights laws and the New York State Human Rights Law. Ghent claimed he was subjected to disparate treatment, specifically citing the non-renewal of his FORUM West mentor contract as racially motivated. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting sovereign immunity for SUNY and presenting documented performance issues as legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the contract decision. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate a genuine issue of material fact regarding whether the defendants' stated reasons were a pretext for unlawful discrimination.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentCivil RightsEleventh AmendmentSovereign ImmunityDisparate TreatmentContract Non-renewalPerformance IssuesPretext
References
73
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01845
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Goya v. Longwood Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

This case from the Appellate Division, First Department, involves appeals related to a Labor Law action stemming from an incident on a fire escape ladder. The court modified several Supreme Court orders, granting summary judgment dismissal for A.A.D. Construction Corp. on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while denying renewal for a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also addressed complex issues of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance among various defendants and third-party defendants, including Longwood Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., Melcara Corp., AIM Construction of NY Inc., Clark & Wilkins Industries, Inc., Cross Contracting, Inc., and Triboro Maintenance Corp. The court affirmed in part, modified in part, and reversed a judgment dismissing a contribution claim, reinstating it.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceElevation-Related RiskFire Escape LadderStatutory AgentAnti-Subrogation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 4,618 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