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
Aug 13, 1992

Baca v. HRH Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order dismissing a third-party plaintiff's claim for contribution. The court determined that a pre-verdict "high-low" agreement between the plaintiffs and the third-party plaintiff general contractor constituted a release under General Obligations Law § 15-108, thereby barring the contribution claim against the third-party defendant. It was also noted that the plaintiffs lacked standing to appeal the dismissal of the third-party claim. Furthermore, the court found that the third-party plaintiff's purported assignment of its contribution claim to the plaintiff was void, as no claim to assign existed given that its liability was limited to less than its equitable share by the settlement. The court also questioned whether such an assignment could circumvent the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions.

High-low agreementContribution claimGeneral Obligations Law § 15-108ReleaseCPLR 5511Standing to appealWorkers' Compensation Law exclusivityEquitable shareAssignment of claimThird-party practice
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grancaris v. J. I. Hass Co.

This case involves two employees of J. I. Hass Co., Inc. (Hass) who were injured in Maryland due to a scaffold accident and received workers' compensation benefits. They sued Hass, its subsidiary J. I. Hass Equipment Co., Inc. (Equipment), U. S. Steel Corp. (Steel), and others. Hass and Equipment moved to dismiss the cross claims and complaint against them, arguing the action was barred by workers' compensation laws. Special Term initially denied dismissal for Hass and Equipment, asserting the applicability of New York's Dole-Dow rule regarding contribution against employers. This appellate court reversed that determination, holding that Maryland law applies, which precludes both the direct action against the employer and contribution against them as joint tort-feasors, thus granting the motions to dismiss the complaint against Equipment and the cross claims against both Hass and Equipment.

Workers CompensationChoice of LawLex Loci DelictiContribution ClaimJoint TortfeasorScaffold AccidentMaryland LawNew York LawEmployer ImmunityMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beltran v. City of New York

This case involves a third-party defendant, Mulvihill Electrical Contracting Corp., moving to dismiss a third-party action filed by New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) based on the exclusivity provision of Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The underlying case stems from a plaintiff's injury sustained while employed by Mulvihill, who was under contract with NYCTA. NYCTA sought indemnification or contribution from Mulvihill under common law and contract, and for breach of contract due to Mulvihill's failure to procure insurance. The court analyzed the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 amendment regarding 'grave injury' as a bar to common-law claims. It ruled that while common-law indemnification/contribution claims are barred without grave injury, contractual indemnification claims are permissible. The court also allowed the breach of contract claim for failure to procure insurance. Consequently, Mulvihill’s motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims was granted, but the motion to dismiss contractual claims and the breach of contract claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211Exclusivity ProvisionIndemnificationContributionBreach of ContractGrave InjuryThird-Party ClaimMotion to DismissContractual Obligation
References
7
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hicks v. IBM

Plaintiff Brenda Hicks, who is half Native American and half African American, brought an employment discrimination claim against her employer IBM and four individual employees (Marty Ricker, George Walker, J.J. Sinnott, and Dr. Katherine Frase). The claims were filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York's Executive Law §§ 296 and 297, alleging racially discriminatory job assignments, lack of commensurate training, and a racially oppressive work environment. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing a lack of individual liability. The court denied the motion to dismiss the § 1981 claims against all individual defendants and the § 296 claims against Walker, Sinnott, and Frase, but granted Defendant Ricker's motion to dismiss the § 296(6) claim against him, reasoning that a primary actor cannot aid and abet his own actions.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentIndividual Liability42 U.S.C. § 1981New York Executive Law § 296Motion to DismissSupervisor LiabilityAiding and AbettingCivil Rights
References
31
Case No. 11 civ. 913, 11 civ. 4212
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. JPMorgan Chase & Co.

Irving Picard, the SIPA Trustee for Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities, LLC (BMIS), sued JPMorgan Chase & Co. and UBS AG, along with their affiliates and feeder funds, to recover billions in damages. The Trustee alleged that these defendants aided and abetted Madoff's Ponzi scheme through common law claims such as fraud and breach of fiduciary duty. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the Trustee lacked standing to pursue claims belonging to BMIS's customers, not BMIS itself. The court agreed, holding that a bankruptcy trustee typically represents the debtor, and Madoff's misconduct, imputed to BMIS, invoked the in pari delicto doctrine, precluding BMIS from suing. The court also rejected the Trustee's arguments for standing based on Bankruptcy Code Section 544(a), New York's contribution statute, and common law bailment or equitable subrogation. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss all common law claims was granted due to the Trustee's lack of standing.

Ponzi SchemeSecurities Investor Protection ActBankruptcy TrusteeStanding to SueCommon Law ClaimsAiding and Abetting FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyIn Pari DelictoCreditor ClaimsDebtor's Estate
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Lesline v. State

An inmate, the claimant, appealed the dismissal of his claim against the State of New York. He sought damages alleging severe emotional distress after his photograph, taken during an educational program at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, was published in the New York Times without his consent. The claimant asserted violations of his statutory and constitutional privacy rights, and cruel and unusual punishment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that public policy bars claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the State. It also found no factual basis for claims of malice, and determined that the photograph, illustrating an article of general public interest, did not infringe upon privacy rights under constitutional law or New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51, as it was not used for trade or advertising. The argument regarding cruel and unusual punishment was also deemed unfounded.

Privacy RightsCivil Rights LawIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCruel and Unusual PunishmentInmate RightsPublication without ConsentCourt of ClaimsAppellate DecisionGovernment LiabilityNew York State Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

The plaintiffs, three Novo Nordisk entities, sued defendant Genentech seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement, and asserted antitrust claims. Genentech filed a motion to dismiss claims three and four of the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted in part Genentech's motion, dismissing the 'sham' litigation antitrust claim (claim four) under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, finding the prior ITC proceeding was not objectively baseless. However, the court denied dismissal of the 'Walker Process' antitrust claim (claim three), which alleged fraudulent procurement of a patent, due to uncertainty regarding Noerr-Pennington's applicability to such claims and adequate pleading of a Sherman Act violation. The motion to dismiss was partially granted, dismissing the 'sham' litigation claim but allowing the 'fraudulent procurement' claim to proceed.

Motion to DismissAntitrust LawPatent InfringementDeclaratory JudgmentNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham LitigationWalker Process ClaimSherman ActRule 12(b)(6)Patent Validity
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 24,442 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