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. 1999-05407
Regular Panel Decision

Red Cap Valet, Ltd. v. Hotel Nikko (USA), Inc.

This case involves appeals by defendants Ramon Rosa and Leigh Russo from orders of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning defamation and tortious interference with a contract. Ramon Rosa's appeal regarding an order denying his cross-motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction was withdrawn. The Appellate Division modified another order, granting Leigh Russo's motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action (defamation) against her, finding the statement subject to qualified privilege and the plaintiff failed to allege malice. Additionally, the plaintiff was denied leave to replead the sixth cause of action (conspiracy to tortiously interfere with contractual relations) against both defendants, as New York does not recognize an independent tort for conspiracy. The Supreme Court's decision to not dismiss the second cause of action against Ramon Rosa for tortious interference with prospective contractual relations was upheld.

DefamationTortious InterferenceContractual RelationsMotion to DismissPersonal JurisdictionLeave to RepleadQualified PrivilegeAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureConspiracy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Corp. v. Allsup

Robert Allsup sued Exxon Corporation for tortious interference with his lifetime employment contract with King Ranch and with a prospective employment relationship with Don Brock, Distributor (DBD). Allsup, a gate guard since 1961 with a verbal lifetime employment agreement, was effectively managed by Exxon and its subcontractors from 1976. In 1988, Exxon awarded the gate guard contract to DBD, who, under Exxon's influence and based on prior complaints from Exxon personnel, refused to hire Allsup. The jury found Exxon tortiously interfered with Allsup's contract and awarded damages. The appellate court affirmed the finding of tortious interference and associated damages, including exemplary damages, but reversed the finding regarding negligent handling of employment relationship as it constitutes an intentional tort.

Tortious InterferenceContractual RelationshipProspective EmploymentLifetime ContractActual MalicePunitive DamagesJury VerdictTexas Appellate CourtEmployer InterferenceAffirmative Defense
References
46
Case No. 83 Civ. 2059
Regular Panel Decision

Perry v. International Transport Workers' Federation

This case addresses a complex labor dispute between plaintiffs William Perry (President of Local 6, International Longshoremen’s Association) and International Shipping Association (ISA) against defendant International Transport Workers’ Federation (ITF). Plaintiffs alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton and Sherman Acts, alongside state law claims for tortious interference with contractual rights, primarily concerning ITF’s 'blacking' policy on 'flag of convenience' vessels. ITF cross-claimed for antitrust violations, tortious interference, unfair competition, and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the plaintiffs’ antitrust claim, citing a statutory labor exemption for ITF's activities, and dismissed ITF's antitrust counterclaim. While denying summary judgment on most tortious interference claims due to factual disputes, the court granted summary judgment to defendant on ISA’s tortious interference claim and to plaintiff Local 6 on ITF’s counterclaim for tortious interference with contractual relations. Furthermore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the damages portion of the defendant's Lanham Act counterclaim.

Antitrust LawLabor DisputesSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceLanham ActSherman ActClayton ActNorris-LaGuardia ActFlag of Convenience VesselsCollective Bargaining
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Italian & French Wine Co. of Buffalo, Inc. v. Negociants U.S.A., Inc.

This case involves a New York wholesale liquor distributor (Plaintiff, later identified as Italian & French Wine Company) suing Negociants U.S.A., Inc. and Lauber Imports, Ltd. Plaintiff alleged breach of an oral exclusive distributorship contract and tortious interference with contractual relations, among other claims. Plaintiff contended that Negociants terminated its agreement without reasonable notice due to Lauber's threats and interference. Both Negociants and Lauber filed motions to dismiss the First Amended Complaint for failure to state a cause of action. Magistrate Judge Foschio recommended denying these motions, a recommendation adopted by District Judge Arcara. The court found that the plaintiff had sufficiently stated claims for breach of contract against Negociants and for tortious interference with a contract, tortious interference with prospective contractual relations, unjust enrichment, and punitive damages against Lauber. Consequently, the defendants' motions to dismiss were denied.

Breach of contractTortious interferenceUnjust enrichmentMotions to dismissOral contractDistributorship agreementPunitive damagesExclusive agencyNew York lawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)
References
33
Case No. 03-17-00707-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2018

CoreALM, LLC v. Keen Fusion, Inc.

CoreALM, LLC appealed a trial court's judgment that awarded Keen Fusion, Inc. damages for tortious interference with contract and business disparagement. CoreALM contended that the economic loss rule barred the award and that the evidence was legally insufficient to support the jury's findings. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment. It determined that the economic loss rule did not preclude Keen Fusion's recovery on its tort claims because the duty not to interfere with contractual relationships arises from common law, independent of any contractual agreement between the interfering party and the party whose contract was interfered with. The court also found factually sufficient evidence to support the jury's finding that CoreALM tortiously interfered with Keen Fusion’s contract with eCommQuest, which proximately caused Keen Fusion to lose an engagement with Johnson Controls. Given the valid finding on tortious interference, the court did not address the challenge to the business disparagement claim.

Tortious Interference with ContractEconomic Loss RuleBusiness DisparagementContract BreachAppellate ReviewFactual Sufficiency of EvidenceProximate CauseCommon Law DutyIndependent Contractor DisputeSubcontractor Agreement
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 1991

Rodrigues v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal concerning a lawsuit filed by Antonio Rodrigues and Inner City Drywall Corporation against various defendants, including District Attorney Morgenthau, Assistant District Attorneys Mechmann and Mass, Melvin Eckhaus (a paid informer), and two labor unions. The plaintiffs alleged causes of action including false arrest, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, civil rights violations, and tortious interference with contractual relations. The core of the dispute centers on Eckhaus's activities as an informer, allegations of extortion and entrapment, and the prosecutor defendants' alleged misuse of Grand Jury subpoenas without a Grand Jury being convened, alongside claims of press leaks. The Supreme Court initially denied motions to dismiss the civil rights and tortious interference claims, while granting dismissal of the abuse of process claim with leave to replead. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that the prosecutor defendants were not entitled to absolute immunity for their investigative actions, particularly the improper issuance of Grand Jury subpoenas, as these functions fell outside their quasi-judicial scope. The appellate court also upheld the claim for tortious interference with contractual relations.

Civil Rights ViolationsAbuse of ProcessMalicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestTortious Interference with ContractProsecutorial ImmunityGrand Jury SubpoenasEntrapmentExtortionPress Leaks
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Concourse Nursing Home v. Engelstein

This action stems from an earlier labor dispute between Local 144 and Concourse Nursing Home regarding Medicaid reimbursements. Concourse sued defendants Daniel Engelstein and Vladeck, Waldman, Elias & Engelhard, P. C., alleging wrongful interference with contractual relations, wrongful inducement of breach of contracts, prima facie tort, and negligent interference with contractual relationships, stemming from defendants' communications with the Department of Health (DOH) which led to DOH rescinding an additional $3.3 million reimbursement to Concourse. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting First Amendment immunity under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which protects efforts to petition the government. The court found that defendants' actions were protected lobbying efforts and did not fall under the 'sham exception' since they were successful in their lobbying and not in competition with Concourse. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss the complaint and denied plaintiff's cross-motion to compel discovery, holding that defendants were entitled to First Amendment immunity.

Noerr-Pennington doctrineFirst AmendmentImmunityLobbying EffortsSham ExceptionTortious InterferenceContractual RelationsPrima Facie TortNegligent InterferenceMotion to Dismiss
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust

The third-party defendant, Plaster Master, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law on a contractual indemnification claim. The lower court had found Plaster Master contractually obligated to indemnify Kimco Realty Services, Inc., the general contractor, in a case stemming from a personal injury lawsuit by a Plaster Master employee. The appellate court found the indemnification provision in the contract, drafted by Kimco, to be ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarifying parol evidence, the court resolved the ambiguity against Kimco. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted Plaster Master's motion, and dismissed Kimco's third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Contractual IndemnificationAmbiguity in ContractParol EvidenceConstruction LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityMeeting of the MindsThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Rodrigues, an employee of Caldas Concrete Company, Inc., was injured at a construction site. Plaintiffs commenced an action against the property owner and N & S Building Contractors, Inc., which in turn initiated a third-party action against Caldas for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed N & S's contractual indemnification claim against Caldas. N & S appealed this dismissal, arguing the agreement provided for indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the indemnification clause did not unambiguously cover injuries sustained by Caldas employees.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 241(6)Third-Party ActionConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor IndemnityGrave InjuryStrict Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Podhaskie v. Seventh Chelsea Associates

A judgment entered February 14, 2003, which granted summary judgment to third-party defendant Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Company, Inc. (Regional) dismissing a third-party complaint seeking contractual indemnity, was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the third-party complaint and all cross claims. The case involves an injured carpenter, employed by Regional, who sued the owner (Seventh Chelsea Associates) and construction manager (HRH Construction Corporation) for personal injuries under the Labor Law. These appellants then brought a third-party action against Regional for contractual indemnification. The lower court dismissed this claim, finding no existing contract for indemnity at the time of the accident. However, the appellate court found an issue of fact regarding whether various documents, including a bid proposal, certificate of insurance, and a later formal contract, demonstrated Regional's intent for the indemnification to apply retroactively, thus precluding summary dismissal.

Contractual IndemnitySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawAppellate DivisionScaffolding AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Project
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,557 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