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

New York Hospital Medical Center v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

This case addresses whether an employer's protection from third-party claims under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 is lost when its injured employees are undocumented aliens. Plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center sued defendant Microtech Contracting for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification, following a judgment paid to Microtech's injured undocumented employees, Luis and Gerardo Lema. The hospital argued that Microtech's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in hiring the Lemas should preclude it from invoking Section 11's shield. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division dismissed the hospital's claims, affirming that employee immigration status does not negate an employer's statutory rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the illegality of the employment contract under IRCA does not override the employer's protections under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, particularly as the hospital did not pursue conflict preemption on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Undocumented AliensThird-Party ClaimsContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryPreemptionLabor LawEmployer LiabilityEmployee Rights
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2011

Kausal v. Educational Products Information Exchange Institute

The plaintiff initiated legal action against the defendant, seeking damages for the breach of an employment contract and a violation of Labor Law article 6. The core of the dispute revolved around an employment agreement where the defendant, through its project manager, sponsored the plaintiff for an H1B work visa, promising a minimum annual salary of $46,500 and tuition benefits. Despite these terms being formalized in visa application documents signed by the defendant's representative, the plaintiff alleged non-payment in accordance with the agreement. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the complaint, ruling in favor of the defendant by misclassifying the plaintiff as an independent contractor. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the complaint and awarding judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability, concluding that a valid employment contract existed and the plaintiff was indeed an employee under Labor Law, remitting the case for a trial on damages.

breach of contractemployment contractLabor LawH1B visawage disputewrongful dismissalappellate reviewnonjury trialdamagesliability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 1984

McIntosh v. International Business Machines Corp.

The case involves an appeal from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, regarding the dismissal of a complaint filed by Filomena McIntosh. McIntosh, an employee at will, sought damages for breach of an employment contract, prima facie tort, and malicious discharge. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concurring with the lower court's finding that as an at-will employee, McIntosh failed to demonstrate any limitation on the employer's right to discharge. Additionally, the complaint alleged a violation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 120 for unlawful discharge related to a compensation claim. However, the court clarified that enforcement and determination of such violations, including penalties, fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Workers’ Compensation Board, not the court.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentWrongful DischargeWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewJurisdiction DisputePrima Facie TortMalicious DischargeComplaint DismissalAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Good v. Town of Brutus

A claimant, employed as a court clerk since 2002, developed carpal tunnel syndrome and filed a workers’ compensation claim in 2007, which was established as an occupational disease. She was awarded a 25% schedule loss of use of the left hand. The employer’s workers’ compensation carrier sought apportionment of liability with her two most recent prior employers under Workers’ Compensation Law § 44. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied this request, finding no medical evidence of the condition arising from prior employment. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s determination, stating that despite the claimant experiencing symptoms previously and an independent medical examiner suggesting apportionment, there was no objective medical proof that she contracted the condition while working for a previous employer. The court emphasized that the focus for apportionment is whether the claimant contracted the occupational disease during that specific employment.

Occupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeApportionment of LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 44Prior EmployersMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminerSchedule Loss of UseWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2003

Petrillo v. Durr Mechanical Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which was unanimously affirmed by an appellate panel. The order granted summary judgment to third-party defendants Proven Electrical Contracting Co. and Barrier Electrical Contracting, Inc., leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint filed by Durr. The court determined that Durr's claims for contribution and common-law indemnification against Proven, the plaintiff's employer, were barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because the plaintiff's injuries were not considered "grave." Additionally, Durr failed to demonstrate the existence of contracts requiring indemnification or insurance procurement from Proven. Barrier was also granted summary judgment after establishing it was not present at the job site during the accident and had no relevant contractual obligations to Durr. Durr's speculative request for further discovery was rejected as insufficient grounds to deny summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintWorkers' Compensation LawContributionCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationInsurance ProcurementGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration of Controversies between Central Aviation & Marine Corp. & International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers

This case concerns a motion by a Union to compel arbitration based on an alleged collective bargaining agreement dated August 8, 1962. The Employer opposes arbitration, contending no valid contract was formed. Affidavits from both sides presented conflicting accounts of negotiation authority and intent, particularly regarding John F. Riley's power to bind the Employer. The National Labor Relations Board had previously found the August 8, 1962 document to be a collective bargaining contract for bar purposes in a separate decertification hearing. However, the District Court, finding the N.L.R.B. order not res judicata and based on the parties' conduct post-August 8, 1962, concluded that no collective bargaining agreement was entered into. Consequently, the Union's motion was denied and the Employer's cross-petition dismissed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementContract ValidityLabor UnionEmployer-Employee RelationsNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)NLRB OrderDecertification PetitionAuthority to ContractGood Faith Bargaining
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morrin v. Structural Steel Board of Trade, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by the defendant from an injunction that prohibited the employment of individuals not part of the plaintiff's union. The plaintiff's claim was based on an alleged, unsigned contract, asserting that the defendant's representative had agreed to its terms. The defendant, however, contended that its representative was only authorized to negotiate and not to finalize an agreement, and furthermore, that the submitted agreement deviated from the authorized negotiation parameters. Citing sharp factual disputes in the record, the court ruled that an injunction pendente lite was unwarranted and should not have been issued. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the motion was denied, emphasizing that the rights of the parties should be determined after a full trial.

injunctionemployment lawunion contractappellate reviewcontract negotiationfactual disputependente litelabor disputereversed decisionmotion denied
References
0
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05756 [209 AD3d 495]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2022

Lopez v. 157-161 E. 28th St., LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning the dismissal of second third-party claims for breach of contract, unpaid overtime wages, and breach of constructive trust related to a construction project. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that New Wave Contracting Corp., a subcontractor, was the direct employer of the individual second third-party plaintiffs, not the general contractors Iceberg Developing Co., LLC and Forkosh Construction Co., Inc. The court also found that signed lien waivers and releases by the individual second third-party plaintiffs validly barred their wage and contract claims, as payment was accepted without objection. Furthermore, constructive trust claims were correctly dismissed due to the lack of contractual privity between the individual second third-party plaintiffs and the general contractors.

Construction ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWage ClaimsLien LawSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipContractual PrivityRelease WaiverAppellate ReviewThird-Party Claims
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,638 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