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
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NAS Electronics, Inc. v. Transtech Electronics PTE Ltd.

The plaintiffs, NAS Electronics, Inc., Jerry Choe, and Pil Yon Choe, initiated an action in New York State Supreme Court against Transtech Electronics Pte Ltd., NAS-Transtech Technology Ltd., and four individuals, alleging fraud, breach of contract, tortious interference, slander, and seeking a preliminary injunction. This lawsuit arose from a previous settlement agreement where the plaintiffs owed the defendants $3.2 million due to the plaintiffs' failure to make timely payments and transfer patent rights. The case was subsequently removed to the Southern District of New York. Presiding District Judge Koeltl granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissal on all claims. The fraud claim was barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, the breach of contract claim failed due to the plaintiffs' own material breach, and the tortious interference, slander, and preliminary injunction claims were deemed unsupportable or moot. The court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motions for partial summary judgment, leave to amend the complaint, and to reopen discovery.

Summary JudgmentContract LawFraud ClaimRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceSlander ClaimPreliminary InjunctionFederal Civil Procedure
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 1994

Whirlpool Corp. v. Philips Electronics, N.V.

This case involves Whirlpool Corporation seeking to confirm a foreign arbitral award against Philips Electronics N.V., while Philips moved to dismiss or stay the action pending further arbitration. The dispute arose from a joint venture and subsequent acquisition of Philips' Argentine MDA operations by Whirlpool, specifically concerning the revaluation of fixed assets and the applicable accounting policies under their Reorganization and Purchase Agreement (RPA) and Amendment No. 1. An initial arbitration before Arthur Andersen & Co. ruled in favor of Whirlpool, determining that Schedule G of the RPA, which limited asset revaluation, applied despite Philips' arguments for a different "Schedule G (Argentina)." The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, affirmed Andersen's jurisdiction and the validity of its binding award. Consequently, Whirlpool's motion to confirm the foreign arbitral award was granted, and Philips' motion to dismiss or stay the action was denied.

Arbitral Award ConfirmationForeign ArbitrationContract DisputeAccounting PoliciesAsset ValuationJoint VentureCorporate AcquisitionFederal Arbitration ActDispute ResolutionJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Rochester Independent Workers & General Dynamics/Electronics Division

This case involves a motion by the Rochester Independent Workers, Local No. 1 (Union) to compel arbitration against General Dynamics/Electronics Division (Company). The grievance concerned a reduction in force, lay-offs, and the transfer of work out of the bargaining unit. The Union claimed violations of the Recognition and Management Rights articles of their collective bargaining agreement. The Company argued that its right to subcontract and assign work was an exclusive management prerogative explicitly excluded from arbitration by the agreement. The court, referencing Federal precedents, determined that the agreement's language clearly excluded such matters from arbitration and, therefore, denied the Union's motion to compel arbitration.

arbitrationlabor disputecollective bargaining agreementsubcontractingmanagement rightsgrievance procedurelay-offunionfederal court decisionscontract interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gould v. International Paper Co.

Plaintiff Lawrence Gould sustained a severe head injury while performing logging work for his father on property owned by International Paper Company. Plaintiff and his wife initiated an action against G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc., International Paper Company, and International Paper Timberlands Operating Company, alleging that G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. left the property in a dangerous condition by allowing hanging trees to remain, which caused the plaintiff's injuries. Earlier in the litigation, International Paper Company was granted summary judgment, affirmed on appeal, on the grounds of a lack of proximate cause evidence. Subsequently, G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. moved for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing factual issues from a second deposition. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment to G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc. is reversed. The appellate court ruled that the doctrine of the law of the case precluded reconsideration of the proximate cause issue, as it had already been judicially determined on facts common to all defendants. The court also found the second deposition testimony to be inconsistent, speculative, and lacking probative value. Summary judgment is granted to G.L. & R.L. Logging, Inc., and the complaint against it is dismissed.

Summary JudgmentProximate CauseLaw of the CaseLogging AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityDangerous Property ConditionDeposition Testimony
References
7
Case No. ADJ2329061
Regular
Jun 24, 2014

Irene Cota vs. C.R. Courier Services, Gallagher Bassett Services, Inc.

Gallagher Bassett's untimely and unverified petition for removal was dismissed. The Appeals Board granted removal on its own motion to address a lack of clarity regarding Gallagher's party status and the case's disposition. Due to missing or incomplete electronic and paper files, the Board could not determine Gallagher's involvement or the case's procedural history. The Order continuing the case for sanctions was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the trial level to identify the correct employer/administrator before proceeding.

Petition for RemovalDismissalRemoval on Board MotionDecision After RemovalUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionOrder dated April 252014Mandatory Settlement ConferenceWCJ
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renzi v. Case Manangement Concepts

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant sustained a compensable injury in 1998, with the claim becoming the Special Fund for Reopened Cases' liability in 2006. In 2008, a licensed massage therapist submitted requests for payment for services allegedly prescribed by the claimant's treating physician. The Special Fund objected, arguing massage therapists are not authorized providers under the Workers’ Compensation Law. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found massage therapy compensable if performed by a licensed therapist under a physician's supervision, holding payments in abeyance pending prescription submission. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this in an amended decision. This Court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the Board’s determination that the Special Fund is liable, as the massage therapist was not an authorized provider nor did they fall under any statutory exceptions like being a registered nurse, person trained in diagnostic techniques, physical therapist, or occupational therapist.

Workers' Compensation LawMassage TherapyAuthorized Medical ProvidersSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesCompensability of TreatmentStatutory ExceptionsAppellate ReviewProvider AuthorizationMedical Treatment GuidelinesSupervision of Care
References
4
Case No. UNKNOWN CASE NUMBER
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1970

Matter of Stange v. Angelica Textile Services, Inc.

This is a placeholder summary. No legal text was provided for analysis, hence specific case details, parties involved, and the judicial outcome cannot be accurately extracted. The purpose of this output is to demonstrate the JSON structure when actual data is unavailable. Therefore, all fields contain placeholder values.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cutrone v. Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc.

Plaintiffs Brian Cutrone and Jessica Cervone filed a putative class action against Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems, Inc. (MERS), alleging violations of New York General Business Law and breaches of implied warranties related to mortgage recording taxes. The core dispute stemmed from the inapplicability of certain tax-saving refinancing agreements (CEMAs) for E-Sign mortgages following a New York court ruling, which allegedly forced plaintiffs and a class of similarly situated individuals to pay a second mortgage tax. MERS removed the case to federal court, citing both federal question and Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) diversity jurisdiction. The District Court, however, found no valid federal question jurisdiction as plaintiffs' claims were state-law based, with any federal issue being a mere defense, and ruled that MERS's removal under CAFA was untimely, as the company had sufficient information from the initial complaint to ascertain removability. Consequently, the motion to remand was granted due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction, returning the case to the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County.

Class ActionRemandFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionCAFAFederal QuestionMortgage Electronic Registration SystemsE-Sign MortgageNew York General Business LawMortgage Recording Tax
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 17,025 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