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 Sterling Die Casting Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Local 365 United Auto Workers Welfare and Pension Fund (the Fund) against Sterling Die Casting Company regarding the avoidance of a judgment lien under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(l)(4). The central issue is whether New York State practice regarding the docketing of judgments discriminates against federal court judgments. The Fund argued that its lien was created on the date of judgment in federal court, while Sterling contended it was created upon docketing with the county clerk, which fell within the 90-day preference period before its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Judge's decision, holding that New York's C.P.L.R. 5018(b) does not discriminate and that a lien is established only upon filing a transcript with the county clerk, serving the practical need for centralized record-keeping.

Judgment LienBankruptcy Code Section 547(b)(l)(4)Federal vs. State JudgmentsNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules 5018(b)28 U.S.C. Section 1962Docketing JudgmentsProperty LienSupremacy ClauseRetroactive DocketingEastern District of New York
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01036 [180 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2020

Ortiz v. Mar-Can Transp. Co., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting defendants Mar-Can Transportation Co., Inc. and Ramonita Matos' motion to renew their summary judgment motion and dismiss the complaint. The court found the lower court properly exercised its discretion in granting renewal to correct a procedural error, as defendants had a right to enforce a prior preclusion order against the plaintiff, Rosalinda Ortiz. Defendants also made a prima facie showing that the action was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions, establishing that Ortiz was Mar-Can's special employee at the time of the bus accident. Since Ortiz was precluded from submitting opposition, the dismissal was proper.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySpecial Employee DoctrineSummary Judgment RenewalProcedural Error CorrectionPreclusion Order EnforcementAppellate ReviewEmployment LiabilityBus Accident ClaimsNew York Appellate DivisionCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. ADJ2057251
Regular
Nov 06, 2012

Santos Acevedo vs. Del Mar Die Casting Co., State Compensation Insurance Fund

This case concerns a cumulative trauma injury resulting in a stroke for applicant Santos Acevedo. A WCJ awarded home care services and modifications, finding the applicant in need of 9 hours of non-skilled assistance daily. Both the applicant and defendant State Compensation Insurance Fund sought reconsideration of this award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to allow further study of the factual and legal issues, aiming for a just and reasoned decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDel Mar Die Casting Co.State Compensation Insurance FundSantos AcevedoHome Care IssuePetition for ReconsiderationCumulative Trauma InjuryStrokeHome Health Care AssistantIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. CA 12-00576
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2012

JOHNSON, JOSHUA v. DEL VALLE, JORGE

Plaintiff Joshua Johnson sought damages for injuries sustained at work when co-employee Jorge Del Valle allegedly threw a baseball, striking Johnson's face. Del Valle moved for summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, reversed the order, denied the motion, and reinstated the complaint. The court found that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether Del Valle's actions were within the scope of his employment, thereby challenging the applicability of the workers' compensation exclusivity provision.

Personal InjuryCo-employee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of FactNegligenceWorkplace InjuryNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Continental Casualty Co. v. Employers Insurance

Plaintiff insurance companies, Continental Insurance Co. and American Casualty Co. (CNA), initiated a declaratory judgment action seeking a declaration that they have no duty to indemnify Robert A. Keasbey Co. (Keasbey) for asbestos-related claims, arguing that all claims fall under exhausted products hazard/completed operations coverage. The defendant class of asbestos claimants sought coverage under a new 'operations' theory not subject to aggregate limits. The trial court ruled in favor of the claimants, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court found that equitable affirmative defenses like laches applied against the claimants, who stood in Keasbey’s shoes. It further determined that coverage is triggered by 'injury-in-fact' rather than mere exposure to asbestos, and that the aggregate limits of the primary and excess policies were exhausted, thus absolving CNA of further indemnity obligations.

AsbestosInsurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentProducts HazardCompleted OperationsOperations CoverageAggregate LimitsExcess InsuranceBodily InjuryInjury-in-Fact
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yacono v. Buck Kreighs Co.

Waterman Steamship Co., Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted Buck Kreighs Co., Inc.'s motion for summary judgment dismissing Waterman's cross-claim for indemnity and contribution. The underlying action involved a longshoreman's personal injury aboard a Waterman vessel due to alleged negligence by Kreighs. Applying Federal maritime negligence law, the Appellate Court affirmed the dismissal of Waterman's cross-claims for common law contribution and indemnification, finding the plaintiff's prior dismissal against Kreighs on the merits was dispositive. The court also considered Waterman's claim for implied contractual indemnification under the Ryan doctrine but concluded that Waterman failed to raise a triable issue of fact, as it did not demonstrate that its potential liability was based on a non-fault premise. Therefore, the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss Waterman's cross-claims was affirmed.

Personal InjuryMaritime LawAdmiralty LawIndemnity ClaimsContribution ClaimsSummary Judgment AppealLongshoremen InjuriesRyan DoctrineWorkmanlike PerformanceFederal Maritime Negligence Law
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carollo v. Tishman Construction & Research Co.

The court reviewed postverdict motions in an action under Labor Law sections 240 and 241, where a jury found Tishman Construction and Research Co., Inc. (Tishman), Anthony Muratore Contracting Co., Inc. (Muratore), and Die Under-hill (Die) liable for a laborer's injuries, with Tishman being passively negligent. Tishman's motion to dismiss the verdict was denied, as the court determined Tishman functioned as a 'contractor' or 'owner's agent' under the Labor Law despite its 'construction manager' title. Furthermore, the court granted Tishman's motion for 100% contractual indemnification from Muratore and Die. This decision affirmed the validity of their indemnification clauses, ruling they were not void under General Obligations Law section 5-322.1(1) given Tishman's passive negligence and the parties' insurance provisions. The case underscores the broad interpretation of 'contractor' duties under Labor Law and the enforceability of indemnification agreements between actively and passively negligent parties.

Labor LawWorkplace SafetyConstruction Site InjuryIndemnification AgreementPassive NegligenceActive NegligenceContractual LiabilityGeneral Obligations LawConstruction Manager DutiesSubcontractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 1988

Richiusa v. Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co.

Cologero Richiusa suffered personal injuries at Flushing Truck Repair Co. and subsequently received workers' compensation benefits as an employee of Kahn Lumber & Millwork Co., Inc. Richiusa then initiated a negligence action against both Flushing Truck and Kahn Lumber. The Supreme Court denied both defendants' motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was reversed, with the appellate court concluding that the workers' compensation award served as an exclusive remedy against Kahn and that Richiusa was a special employee of Flushing Truck, thereby barring the action against both defendants. The complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewNegligenceEmployment StatusStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

Michalak v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a third-party action, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Con Edison) sought common-law and contractual indemnification from Akron Wrecking Co., Inc. (Akron), an employer whose employee, Michalak, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Con Edison. Akron, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Con Edison's third-party complaint. The Supreme Court initially granted Akron's motion, dismissing the complaint entirely without prejudice to contractual indemnification. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division held that Con Edison, by requiring Akron to name it as an additional insured on primary and excess liability policies, waived its right to common-law indemnification up to the aggregate limits of those policies. Consequently, Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of dismissing claims for common-law indemnification, with the motion otherwise denied.

IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredWaiver of IndemnityThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. ADJ7648674
Regular
May 28, 2015

ROGELIO ESPINOZA vs. DEL MAR DIE CASTING, UNITED STATES FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the period of temporary disability indemnity awarded. The original award granted temporary disability from August 2, 2010, through December 5, 2011. The Board amended this period to November 23, 2010, through December 5, 2011, as recommended by the WCJ. The defendant's other contentions regarding permanent disability ratings for the applicant's knees and the initial period of temporary disability were otherwise denied. The original findings regarding the injury and permanent disability remain affirmed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact & AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgePermanent DisabilityTemporary Disability IndemnityPost-termination DefenseAMA Guides 5th EditionSubstantial EvidencePhysical Testing
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 4,004 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