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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1993

Empire Insurance v. Workers' Compensation Board

Empire Insurance Company denied Hugh Wofsy's no-fault benefits claim, alleging he was a Dial-a-Car, Inc. employee requiring Workers' Compensation. An Administrative Law Judge later found Wofsy an independent contractor, denying him Workers' Compensation. Empire sought to reopen the Workers' Compensation claim to participate, which the Board denied. Empire then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, where the IAS Court allowed the reopening and ordered Empire to pay Wofsy, with potential reimbursement. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this judgment, dismissing Empire's petition, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 23 vests exclusive appeal jurisdiction with the Third Department and precludes article 78 proceedings for reviewing Board decisions' substance.

No-fault insuranceIndependent contractor disputeEmployee status determinationCPLR Article 78 proceedingAppellate Division jurisdictionWorkers' Compensation Law § 23Judicial review of administrative decisionsInsurance coverage disputeAdministrative Law Judge rulingReimbursement claim
References
2
Case No. Docket # 7
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. v. Union City Contractors, Inc.

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. against Union City Contractors, Inc. for unpaid debris removal services, and a Miller Act claim against Union City's sureties, Nova Casualty Company and Nova American Groups, Inc. After a bench trial in January 2008, Union City filed for bankruptcy, leading to an automatic stay on claims against them. The court, however, proceeded with Empire's Miller Act claim against Nova. The primary dispute concerned the quantity of debris removed, with Empire claiming 11,470 cubic yards. The court found Empire's evidence credible and rejected Nova's fraud defense, ultimately granting judgment in favor of Empire against Nova for $84,653.63, plus prejudgment interest.

Miller Act claimPayment bondBreach of contractSurety liabilityFederal public works projectDebris removalCubic yardage disputePrejudgment interestAttorney's fees deniedFraud affirmative defense
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nationwide Insurance v. Empire Insurance Group

This case concerns a dispute over insurance coverage. Marcos Ramirez was injured while working for Fortuna Construction, Inc. at premises owned by 11194 Owners Corp. Fortuna had subcontracted work from Total Structural Concepts, Inc. and agreed to add Total Structural as an additional insured on its general liability policy with Empire Insurance Group and Allcity Insurance Company. Ramirez sued 11194 Owners Corp. and Total Structural. Total Structural then commenced a third-party action against Fortuna. Nationwide Insurance Company, as Total Structural's insurer and subrogee, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Empire and Allcity after discovering Total Structural was an additional insured on their policy, demanding coverage for the Ramirez action. The Supreme Court granted Nationwide's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that Total Structural failed to provide timely notice of the Ramirez action to Empire and Allcity as required by the policy. The court emphasized that timely notice is a condition precedent to recovery and that lack of diligent effort to ascertain coverage vitiates the policy. Consequently, the appellate court granted Empire and Allcity's cross-motion, declaring they are not obligated to defend or indemnify Nationwide/Total Structural.

Insurance CoverageTimely NoticeCondition PrecedentDeclaratory JudgmentAdditional InsuredSubrogationSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal InjuryGeneral Liability Policy
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07698 [189 AD3d 611]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Clarke v. Empire Gen. Contr. & Painting Corp.

Plaintiff, Rohan Clarke, sustained personal injuries when he fell from a scaffold while dismantling it in an elevator shaft, leading to an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability for these claims. The court also granted Lough Allen Masonry's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims, and Pen & Brush, Inc.'s motion for contractual indemnification against Empire General Contracting & Painting Corp. Empire's motion to dismiss plaintiff's total and permanent disability claim was denied. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed these orders, finding that plaintiff was not the sole proximate cause or a recalcitrant worker. The appellate court also determined that Empire's contractual indemnification obligation to Pen & Brush was triggered and that plaintiff had not sustained a grave injury under Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Scaffold Fall InjuryLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionContractual IndemnityCommon-Law Indemnification DismissalGrave Injury DeterminationWorkers' Compensation LawPremises LiabilityConstruction Site SafetyThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02401 [237 AD3d 595]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2025

American Empire Surplus Lines Ins. Co. v. Hudson Ins. Group

The Appellate Division affirmed an order denying American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company's motion for leave to renew its motion for summary judgment. The original summary judgment motion in this insurance coverage dispute was denied due to uncertified and unauthenticated documents. American Empire subsequently obtained deposition testimony from witnesses, which it claimed was new evidence. However, it admitted to strategically withholding this testimony from the initial motion due to concerns about its potential negative impact. The Supreme Court's decision to deny the renewal motion based on this 'new' evidence was deemed a provident exercise of discretion by the Appellate Division.

Summary JudgmentMotion to RenewNew EvidenceStrategic DecisionInsurance Coverage DisputeDeposition TestimonyUncertified DocumentsAuthenticated EvidenceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary Denial
References
1
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06999
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2025

Guacho v. DLV Empire, LLC

The plaintiff, Manuel Jesus Tene Guacho, an employee of Aaron S. Construction Corp., sustained a fractured leg when a box containing an elevator door fell on him while working on an elevator installation. He initiated an action against DLV Empire, LLC and Kader Elite Construction, Inc., asserting claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Kader's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against it and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. It affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding the accident not within its scope, but reversed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (a) (1), concluding Kader failed to prima facie demonstrate safe storage of building materials.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkElevator InstallationFalling ObjectSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction Site Safety12 NYCRR 23-2.1General Contractor LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
23
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01635
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2015

Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust v. Special Funds Conservation Committee

The Empire State Transportation Workers' Compensation Trust (the carrier) appealed an order denying its petition for judicial approval of a settlement nunc pro tunc. The claimant, Licinio Marrero, sustained injuries and settled a personal injury action for $100,000 without obtaining the consent of the Special Funds Conservation Committee (SFCC), which is required when SFCC liability is established prior to settlement. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the carrier's request, believing it lacked discretion to compel such consent. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, clarifying that the Supreme Court does have the discretion to issue a nunc pro tunc order compelling consent if certain conditions are met: the delay was not due to the petitioner's fault, the settlement amount was reasonable, and the SFCC was not prejudiced. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for it to exercise its discretion.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Disability FundNunc Pro Tunc OrderSettlement ApprovalReimbursementPersonal Injury ActionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionCarrier's WaiverConsent Requirement
References
6
Case No. 86 Civ. 3028 (JMC)
Regular Panel Decision

ILGWU National Retirement Fund v. Empire State Mills Corp.

The International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union National Retirement Fund and its trustees (plaintiffs) sued Empire State Mills Corporation (defendant) for unpaid withdrawal liability under ERISA and the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act. A default judgment was entered against Empire in October 1986. Empire subsequently moved to set aside the default, citing fraud, misrepresentation, or mistake, arguing it believed an oral settlement existed or that its pro se telephone contact constituted an appearance. The District Court, presided over by Judge Cannella, denied Empire's motion. The court found Empire's failure to appear willful and ruled that its defenses were waived due to its failure to initiate arbitration within the statutory period, as required by the MPPAA.

Withdrawal LiabilityERISAMPPAADefault JudgmentRule 60(b)ArbitrationExhaustion of Administrative RemediesMultiemployer Pension PlanFiduciary DutyPro Se Representation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Insurance v. Insurance Corp.

This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning an insurance coverage dispute. Empire Insurance Company sought a declaration that Insurance Corporation of New York (ICNY) was obligated to defend and indemnify Great American Construction Corp. in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court initially granted Empire's motion for defense but denied indemnification. On appeal, the court found Empire failed to prove ICNY's obligation to defend due to the absence of the commercial general liability policy and insufficient subcontract language regarding additional insured coverage. Similarly, ICNY failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment by not submitting the policy schedule. The appellate court modified the original order by denying Empire's motion for summary judgment on the duty to defend, thus affirming the order as modified. Triable issues of fact remain regarding ICNY's disclaimer letter.

Summary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredCommercial General LiabilitySubcontractCertificate of InsuranceDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyWaiver of DefensesAppellate Review
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 236 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