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

Sperry Systems Management Division v. Engineers Union, International Union of Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers

This case concerns a labor dispute between Sperry Systems Management Division and the Engineers Union regarding subcontracting. Sperry sought to enjoin arbitration, while the Union counterclaimed to compel it, both filing motions for summary judgment. The central issue was whether a grievance, challenging the presence of subcontractor employees in Sperry's plant, was arbitrable under a collective bargaining agreement's clause explicitly excluding subcontracting decisions. The court, led by Judge Bauman, determined that the issue of arbitrability was for judicial determination, not the arbitrator. Finding the exclusionary clause clear and unambiguous, the court granted Sperry's motion, thereby enjoining the arbitration and denying the Union's counterclaim.

Labor DisputeArbitration EnjoinedCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontracting ClauseSummary JudgmentArbitrabilityContract InterpretationGrievance ProcedureLabor Management Relations ActExclusionary Clause
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1986

Leonard Engineering, Inc. v. Zephyr Petroleum Corp.

In an action to foreclose a mechanic's lien, plaintiff Leonard Engineering, Inc. appealed an order that granted defendant New York Paving, Inc.'s motion to discharge the lien and dismiss the complaint, and denied Leonard's cross-motion to amend the lien. Leonard had provided engineering services to defendant Zephyr Petroleum Corporation, which then conveyed the property to New York Paving, Inc. with a trust fund provision in the deed, before Leonard filed its lien. The lien was subsequently filed with an incorrect lot number. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that the lien was ineffective against New York Paving due to the Lien Law § 13 (5) trust fund provision in the deed, which protected the purchaser. Consequently, Leonard's appeal to amend the notice of lien was dismissed as academic.

Mechanic's LienLien LawForeclosureTrust Fund ProvisionReal PropertyDeed CovenantNotice of LienLien AmendmentMisdescriptionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers, Division 269 v. Long Island Rail Road

Plaintiffs, members of the Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers (BLE), sought a preliminary injunction against the Long Island Railroad (LIRR) to prevent the imposition of disciplinary fines following a concerted job action on May 26, 1995. The LIRR assessed fines against engineers who participated in the walk-out, deducting pay. The BLE argued that these fines violate their Collective Bargaining Agreement, the Railway Labor Act (§ 2 Seventh and § 6), and New York Labor Law § 193, classifying the dispute as "major" under the RLA, requiring lengthy mediation. The LIRR contended the fines are disciplinary actions falling under the implied terms of the collective bargaining agreement, making it a "minor" dispute governed by arbitration (§ 2 Sixth and § 3 First® of the RLA). The court, applying the "arguably justified" test from Conrail, found that the LIRR's claim of implied authority to impose fines, based on past flexible disciplinary practices, was neither frivolous nor insubstantial. Therefore, the court concluded the dispute was "minor," falling outside its jurisdictional authority for an injunction, and denied the preliminary injunction, dismissing the case.

Railway Labor ActMinor DisputeMajor DisputePreliminary InjunctionDisciplinary FinesCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeWork StoppageArbitrationStatus Quo Injunction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of International Union of Operating Engineers Local 30 Benefits Funds v. Nyack Hospital

The case concerns an action by the Trustees of the International Union of Operating Engineers, Local 30 Benefit Funds against Nyack Hospital to enforce an arbitration award mandating an audit of the hospital's books. The Defendant refused to participate in arbitration, arguing no agreement to arbitrate existed. The District Court denied the Plaintiffs' motion to confirm the award and granted the Defendant's cross-motion to vacate and dismiss the complaint. The court ruled that the right to arbitrate a payroll audit, as stipulated in the Trust Agreement or Collection Policy, was not an "essential" provision binding on a non-signatory employer like Nyack Hospital. Furthermore, the court found that the Defendant had not waived its right to challenge the arbitration, as the ninety-day statute of limitations did not apply to challenges based on a complete lack of an agreement to arbitrate.

Arbitration AwardArbitrabilityCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementERISALabor Management Relations ActBenefit FundsPayroll AuditNon-signatoryStatute of Limitations
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sacks v. Gandhi Engineering, Inc.

The case involves plaintiff Farrell Sacks' employment discrimination claims against Gandhi Engineering, Inc., based on religion, age, and perceived disability following his termination. Magistrate Judge Debra C. Freeman issued a Report and Recommendation on August 23, 2013, advising partial grant and partial denial of the defendant's summary judgment motion. District Judge Deborah A. Batts adopted this Report and Recommendation after reviewing defendant's objections. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted for the religion and age discrimination claims but denied for the disability discrimination claim. The case will proceed to trial on the perceived disability discrimination claim.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)Title VII of the Civil Rights ActSummary JudgmentReport and RecommendationPerceived DisabilityMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pennsylvania Engineering Corp. v. Islip Resource Recovery Agency

This action stems from a contractual dispute regarding the construction of a waste disposal plant between Pennsylvania Energy Resources Company (PERC), Pennsylvania Engineering Corporation (PEC), and the Islip Resource Recovery Agency. Following an arbitrator's decision finding PERC in default, which was confirmed by the court on April 12, 1989, dismissing plaintiffs' case, PERC and PEC moved to reargue and amend their complaint. They sought to vacate the arbitration award based on alleged arbitrator bias, attempting to relate back the amended complaint. The Court denied these motions, emphasizing that the Federal Arbitration Act's three-month statute of limitations for vacating an award has no common law or Rule 15(c) exceptions under these circumstances. The court further found that the plaintiffs were aware of potential bias at the time of selecting the arbitrator, thus precluding equitable tolling.

ArbitrationContractual DisputeSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActRule 15cRelation Back DoctrineEquitable TollingArbitrator BiasStatute of LimitationsMotion to Amend
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Mortess Johnson, an African-American woman, sued her employer, DELPHI ENERGY and ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., for racial discrimination. She alleged lower wages, lack of promotion, lower classifications, inadequate equipment and training, and being approached about retirement, unlike non-African-American employees, over her thirty-year tenure ending in 1997. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were time-barred and that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as her statistical evidence alone was insufficient and she did not apply for promotions. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding plaintiff's claims regarding a continuing violation were conclusory and her reliance on statistics alone, without proof of applying for promotions, failed to overcome the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her lack of advancement.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentStatistical EvidenceFailure to Promote
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Steuben Foods, Inc. v. GEA Process Engineering, Inc.

Plaintiff Steuben Foods, Inc. initiated a patent infringement lawsuit against Defendants GEA Process Engineering and GEA Procomac S.p.A., alleging infringement of United States Patent No. 6,209,591. The case involved motions for summary judgment filed by the Defendants, which were subject to reports and recommendations by a Magistrate Judge. Following Plaintiff's objections to the Magistrate Judge's second Report and Recommendation, the District Court reviewed the matter de novo. The Court ultimately denied Plaintiff's objections and adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting Defendants' amended motion for summary judgment. The decision hinged on the proper construction of the patent claim term "into," which the Court found to imply the possibility of contact with the contents of a region, a condition not met by the accused product.

Patent InfringementSummary JudgmentClaim ConstructionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMagistrate JudgeReport and RecommendationObjectionsSterile RegionsValve Activation MechanismAseptic Processing
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2017

Claim of Manocchio v. ABB Combustion Engineering

Claimant Robert Manocchio, a boilermaker, developed pleural plaque due to asbestos exposure, filing a workers' compensation claim in 1999. ABB Combustion Engineering, his most recent employer with asbestos exposure, was found liable. ABB's carrier sought to apportion liability among Manocchio's prior employers under Workers' Compensation Law § 44, arguing that the disease's latency suggested earlier causal factors. However, the Workers' Compensation Board denied this request due to a lack of objective proof that Manocchio contracted the disease while with other employers. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, holding that the Board's factual determinations regarding the date of contraction and disablement were supported by substantial evidence and would not be disturbed.

Occupational DiseaseAsbestos ExposurePleural PlaqueWorkers' CompensationApportionment of LiabilityDate of ContractionDate of DisablementSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 01380 [125 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2015

DaSilva v. Haks Engineers, Architects & Land Surveyors

Plaintiff Paulo DaSilva, a construction worker, was injured after falling from a scaffold while working on the Croton Falls Dam project. He brought an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against Haks Engineers, Architects and Land Surveyors, P.C., Earth Tech Northeast, Inc., and Haks Et Joint Venture, who were construction managers for the project. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that under their construction management services contract, defendants did not have supervisory control over the construction methods and were not statutory agents for liability under the Labor Law sections. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, stating that general supervisory duties were insufficient for liability and that plaintiff failed to present evidentiary support to contradict the contract terms or suggest that further discovery would yield relevant evidence.

Construction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentSupervisory ControlStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentLabor LawWorkplace Safety
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,875 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