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

In re the Arbitration between Cluett, Peabody & Co. & Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Petitioner moves to stay arbitration, contending there is no contractual relationship requiring arbitration of disputes arising from Bud Berman's employment practices. The dispute centers on an agreement clause stating the employer shall not hire contractors to manufacture garments unless its own factories are supplied with work and the contractor is in a contractual relationship with the Union. It is asserted that the company's factories are working part-time while contracting operations are indirectly accomplished, allegedly violating the agreement. The court determined that whether the company purposefully diverted manufacturing and contract operations through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Bud Berman, constitutes an arbitrable issue concerning contractual meanings and breach. Therefore, the motion to stay arbitration is denied.

ArbitrationEmployment PracticesContractual RelationshipSubsidiaryUnion AgreementWork DiversionMotion DeniedInterpretation of Contract
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2004

Laratro v. City of New York

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning a tort claim against a municipality for injuries sustained due to a failure to provide emergency assistance, a governmental function typically protected by immunity. The dissent argues that the plaintiff failed to establish a 'special relationship' with the municipality, specifically the 'direct contact' element, as contact was made by a coworker rather than the injured party. The opinion emphasizes that expanding the definition of direct contact to include non-family or non-contractual third parties should be a legislative or higher court decision due to the lack of precedent and potential for significantly increased municipal liability. The majority, however, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the municipal defendants' motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint.

Special relationship doctrineMunicipal immunityDirect contactEmergency services liabilityTort lawSummary judgmentNew York appellate courtGovernmental functionCoworker contact
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strauss v. Belle Realty Co.

On July 13, 1977, a power failure caused by Consolidated Edison left most of New York City in darkness. Plaintiff, Julius Strauss, a tenant in an apartment building, fell on darkened stairs in a common area while attempting to obtain water, sustaining injuries. He sued his landlord, Belle Realty Company, for negligence in maintaining the stairs and Consolidated Edison for negligence in failing to provide electricity. The central legal question was whether Con Edison owed a duty of care to Strauss, a non-customer regarding the common areas of the building, given his landlord's separate contractual relationship with the utility. The court concluded that, as a matter of public policy concerning a widespread blackout, liability for injuries in a building's common areas should be limited by the contractual relationship. The Appellate Division's decision to dismiss the complaint against Con Edison was affirmed.

Power OutageBlackoutUtility LiabilityDuty of CareContractual RelationshipPrivity of ContractGross NegligencePersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityPublic Policy
References
24
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
Dec 03, 1999

Claim of Jhoda v. Mauser Service, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed on December 3, 1999. The Board ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and Mauser Service, Inc., doing business as Nu Nu Car Service. The claimant, a livery car driver, was shot in March 1993 while on a call directed by the corporation’s dispatcher and asserted a workers’ compensation claim. The corporation contested the claim, arguing it had no relationship with the claimant and that its drivers were independent contractors. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s findings, concluding that the decision was supported by substantial evidence, particularly regarding the employer-employee relationship and the accident arising out of and in the course of employment.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractor disputeLivery car driver injuryRadio-dispatched service liabilitySubstantial evidence reviewCredibility findingControl test for employmentAccident arising out of employmentAppellate affirmanceWorkers' compensation appeal
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
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

Claim of Fina v. New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority

The case involves a claimant who injured his leg while serving as a volunteer ski patroller. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled that an employer-employee relationship existed between the claimant and the New York State Olympic Regional Development Authority, despite the claimant's initial volunteer status being established without controversy. The Board's decision reversed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's determination that the claimant, a volunteer, was entitled to benefits based on his regular vocation as a self-employed engineer. On appeal, the court found insufficient evidence in the record to support the Board’s determination of an employer-employee relationship, noting that the Board relied solely on the claimant's testimony from a time when his volunteer status was undisputed. Consequently, the court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for a review of the claimant's average weekly wage based on his volunteer status.

Employer-Employee RelationshipVolunteer StatusWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAverage Weekly WageSubstantial EvidenceScope of Board ReviewSki PatrolGore Mountain Ski CenterNew York State Olympic Regional Development AuthorityRemand
References
9
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2009

Tullino v. Pyramid Companies

The case involves an appeal by third-party defendant Terra Firma Construction Corp. from an order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. The underlying action concerns personal injuries sustained by a plaintiff due to exposure to fireproofing material at a construction site. Third-party plaintiffs, including premises owners and contractors, brought an indemnification claim against Terra Firma, the injured plaintiff's employer. Terra Firma argued there was no contractual indemnification agreement. The Supreme Court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether a purchase order and an unsigned "Appendix A" constituted a binding indemnification agreement between Terra Firma and third-party plaintiff HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that a factual dispute existed regarding the parties' intent to be bound by Appendix A.

Workers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentExpress AgreementPurchase OrderSubcontract Agreement
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,004 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