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

Madden v. Creative Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs George Madden and Roseanne Cohen filed a diversity action against Ralph Douglas Howe, Jr., Michael Sean Cole, National Amusements, Inc., Creative Services, Inc., Sklar, and Redstone. The suit arose from a break-in into the plaintiffs' attorney's office by Howe and Cole, employees of Creative Services, which was hired by National Amusements to investigate opposition to a proposed theater complex. Plaintiffs alleged various torts including intentional infliction of emotional distress, conversion, interference with attorney-client privilege, unlawful search and seizure, and negligent infliction of emotional harm. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint, finding that the alleged conduct did not meet the legal thresholds for the claimed torts under New York law and declined to create new causes of action. Consequently, all principal and derivative claims were dismissed.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressConversionAttorney-Client PrivilegeUnlawful Search and SeizureNegligent Infliction of Emotional HarmLoss of ConsortiumMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentFederal Rules of Civil ProcedurePleading Standards
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 2009

Kilmetis v. Creative Pool & Spa, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Complete Construction Alternatives, Inc., sustained personal injuries on October 3, 2006, after falling from a scaffold while finishing siding on a garage roof. He initiated a personal injury action against Creative Pool and Spa, Inc., alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and asserting Creative Pool was the general contractor. The Supreme Court of Nassau County denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was affirmed, with the court finding that Creative Pool was neither a general contractor nor an agent for liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) concerning the plaintiff's work. This decision was based on evidence that Creative Pool did not supervise or control the plaintiff's work, provided no equipment, and was not present at the site on the accident date.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentGeneral Contractor LiabilityAgent LiabilityAppellate ReviewNew York LawWorkplace Accident
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 1971

Claim of Pollak v. Robert Day, Inc.

The Workmen’s Compensation Board awarded disability benefits to a waiter under the Disability Benefits Law, finding him to be a 'shape-up worker' concurrently employed by Creative Caterers, Inc. and Robert Day, Inc. The claimant fell ill in February 1970 and was hospitalized, having worked for both employers in the same calendar week. Appellants challenged the board's finding of concurrent employment, citing the claimant's sporadic work record and arguing a lack of substantial evidence. The court affirmed the board's decision, asserting that concurrent employment and eligibility are questions of fact solely within the board's province, and its conclusion was supported by sufficient evidence. The court clarified that regular employment by the *same* employers within the same calendar week is not necessary; only regular and customary employment by more than one covered employer within the same week is required.

disability benefitsconcurrent employmentshape-up workerWorkmen's Compensation LawArticle 9substantial evidencequestion of factapportionmentemployer liabilityappellate review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosado v. Proctor & Schwartz, Inc.

Hector Rosado, an employee of Comet Fibers, Inc., was injured by a garnett machine manufactured by Proctor & Schwartz, Inc. Rosado sued Proctor, which then filed a third-party action against Comet, seeking indemnification for Comet's failure to install safety devices as per their sales contract. The trial court and Appellate Division dismissed Proctor's indemnification claim, leading to Proctor's appeal to the Court of Appeals. The Court affirmed the dismissal, holding that a manufacturer is primarily responsible for ensuring product safety and cannot shift this nondelegable duty to the purchaser through contractual boilerplate. The decision clarifies that implied indemnification is not applicable in strict products liability actions when the manufacturer is a wrongdoer and not merely vicariously liable.

Products LiabilityIndemnificationContributionStrict LiabilitySafety DevicesManufacturer LiabilityPurchaser ResponsibilityContractual ObligationImplied IndemnityGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suzy Phillips Originals, Inc. v. Coville, Inc.

This case involves a dispute over defective fabric supplied by defendant Coville, Inc., a textile converter, to plaintiff Suzy Phillips Originals, Inc., a garment manufacturer. Suzy Phillips filed claims for breach of contract, negligence, and misrepresentation. Coville moved for summary judgment to dismiss these claims. The Court granted summary judgment for Coville on the breach of contract claim for lost profits (Second Cause of Action) and the misrepresentation claim (Fourth Cause of Action). Suzy Phillips voluntarily withdrew its negligence claim (Third Cause of Action). The Court denied Coville's motion to remand the case to state court, exercising supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining First Cause of Action for breach of contract, which seeks damages for the cost of goods sold. The Court also denied motions for sanctions and attorneys' fees.

Contract DisputeSummary JudgmentNegligenceMisrepresentationBreach of ContractUniform Commercial CodeSale of GoodsTextile IndustryDamage LimitationLost Profits
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Four Points Shipping & Trading, Inc. v. Poloron Israel, L.P.

The case concerns a dispute over a canceled shipment of prefabricated housing parts. Plaintiff Four Points Shipping and Trading, Inc. sued Poloron Israel, L.P., and TMT Homes, Inc., for lost profits and out-of-pocket expenses. The core issue revolved around a contract between Four Points and Poloron, contingent on a separate manufacturing agreement becoming "effective," which the court interpreted as actual production capability, not just signing. Due to the manufacturer's financial difficulties, the parts were never produced. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the lost profits claim, citing contractual exculpatory clauses and the speculative nature of the damages. However, it denied summary judgment for both parties on the out-of-pocket expenses, allowing Four Points to pursue this claim if it can demonstrate it was misled by Poloron. The court also suggested alternative dispute resolution for the remaining issue.

Contract disputeMaritime lawNew York lawSummary judgmentLost profitsOut-of-pocket expensesBreach of contractContingent contractExculpatory clauseContract interpretation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sprung v. MTR Ravensburg, Inc.

Plaintiff, an assembler at General Electric, was injured when a retractable floor panel in a lathe pit detached and fell on him. He initiated a lawsuit against MTR Ravensburg, the lathe manufacturer, and VF Conner, Inc., the fabricator of the retractable floor, asserting claims of strict products liability and negligence. A central issue in the case was whether VF Conner, Inc. qualified as a "casual manufacturer," which would exempt it from strict products liability. The Appellate Division initially dismissed the complaint, deeming Conner a casual manufacturer and attributing the sole cause of the injury to General Electric's improper installation and maintenance. However, the Court of Appeals reversed this decision, reinstating the complaint against Conner and ruling that as a custom fabricator engaged in the regular course of business, Conner was not a casual manufacturer, thus making strict liability applicable. The complaint against MTR Ravensburg was ultimately dismissed.

Strict LiabilityProducts LiabilityCasual ManufacturerCustom FabricationDesign DefectNegligenceSummary JudgmentWorker SafetyIndustrial AccidentRetractable Floor
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DAR & Associates, Inc. v. Uniforce Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of DAR & Associates, Inc., its principals, and D.A.R. Temps, Inc., initiated a lawsuit against Uniforee Services, Inc. The core of the action sought a declaratory judgment that restrictive covenants and a liquidated damages provision in their contracts were unenforceable under New York law, alongside a breach of contract claim. In addressing cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court found Uniforee possessed legitimate business interests warranting the protection of the restrictive covenants, deeming them reasonable in duration and geographic scope. Furthermore, the court upheld the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause, concluding that actual damages were difficult to ascertain at the time of contract and the agreed-upon sum was reasonable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted, effectively validating the contractual provisions at issue.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseNon-solicitation ClauseLiquidated DamagesBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementLicensing AgreementUnfair Competition
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 1994

Comer v. Titan Tool, Inc.

Plaintiffs Delores Comer and Patricia Edelson, as personal representatives of Michael Comer's estate, brought a diversity action for wrongful death against Titan Tool, Inc., the manufacturer of a paint sprayer Michael Comer was using when he died. Titan Tool, Inc. then filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution from Rock & Waterscape Systems, Inc. (R&W), Comer's employer. R&W moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Florida workers’ compensation law, a death benefit payment to Delores Comer barred further liability. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules and interest analysis, found no basis for applying Florida law as R&W is a California domiciliary. The court denied R&W's motion for summary judgment, stating that triable issues remained regarding the choice of law question between New York and California, as Florida law could not control the case.

wrongful deathsummary judgmentchoice of lawdiversity jurisdictionworkers' compensationdomicileloss allocationtort lawemployer liabilityproduct liability
References
37
Showing 1-10 of 10,131 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