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

Choe v. Fordham University School of Law

Jerry Choe sued Fordham University School of Law and Fordham International Law Journal (ILJ) alleging mutilation of his published Comment. He claimed violations of § 43(a) of the Lanham Act and federal common law "moral rights," along with state claims like libel and breach of contract. Choe contended that the ILJ published a "garbled and distorted" version of his work, containing numerous substantive and typographical errors, which made him appear sloppy. The court examined whether the published Comment substantially departed from the original to the extent that Choe could not be considered its author, referencing cases like Gilliam v. American Broadcasting Co. The court found that despite the alleged errors, Choe himself admitted readers could "uncover the essential meaning" of his Comment, distinguishing it from cases of radical alteration. The court also dismissed the federal common law "moral rights" claim, stating that such a claim is not recognized in this Circuit. Consequently, defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint, including pendent state claims, was dismissed due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Copyright LawLanham ActMoral RightsAuthor's RightsEditorial ControlSummary JudgmentAcademic PublicationLiterary WorksMutilation of WorkFederal Jurisdiction
References
16
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. ADJ9105445
Regular
Dec 01, 2009

CHARLES STUMPH vs. COUNTY OF ORANGE, SHERIFF'S DEPARTMENT

This case concerns a clerical error in a prior Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) opinion. The error involved misidentifying a defendant in the initial sentence of a paragraph. The WCAB has issued an order correcting this clerical error to accurately reflect that the applicant, Charles Stumph, entered into a compromise and release agreement with the County of Orange Sheriff's Department. This correction was made without granting further reconsideration, as such errors can be amended at any time. The Board's original decision rescinded the administrative law judge's findings and approved the compromise and release agreement.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardClerical ErrorReconsiderationLabor Code Section 132aFindings of Fact and OrderCompromise and ReleaseWCJWCAB Rule 10882Labor Code Section 5001Labor Code Section 5002
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2006

Amantia v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor's worker, sued defendants for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence after falling from a cargo truck while unloading forms. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting defendants' motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. It found Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as there was no significant elevation risk, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, based on specific industrial code violations, were also dismissed due to their inapplicability to the facts.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from ElevationWorker SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schlueter v. Health Care Plan, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Schlueter sustained a back injury on a construction site and initiated an action against the project's owner and general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially dismissed his entire complaint and a third-party action against his employer. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, applying the "falling worker or object test." However, the court found error in dismissing claims under Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200. It determined that factual questions remained regarding reasonable and adequate safety under § 241 (6), and the defendants failed to prove lack of supervisory control or notice of unsafe conditions under § 200. Consequently, the claims based on Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200, along with the third-party actions, were reinstated.

Construction InjuryBack InjuryLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Falling Worker TestNondelegable DutySupervisory ControlUnsafe ConditionThird-Party Action
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 1998

Turchioe v. AT&T Communications, Inc.

Plaintiff, a laborer, sustained a back injury while manually transporting a heavy ductlift up a stairway with a co-worker, alleging the co-worker crouched and shifted the full weight onto him. The initial order granted summary judgment dismissing the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified this, dismissing the complaint in its entirety, including all cross claims and third-party actions. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed as the lifting activity was not a 'special hazard'. The Labor Law § 241 (6) claim lacked evidence of lighting violations or causation by debris. The Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims were dismissed due to the absence of supervisory control by the owner or general contractor over the work.

Labor LawWorkplace InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentThird-Party ClaimsCommon Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlAppellate DecisionPremises LiabilityWorker Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2005

Cahill v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Plaintiff, a laborer on the Triborough Bridge, fell from a form while attempting to descend and re-ascend it due to the absence of a mechanical manlift. He sued, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). A jury found the defendant liable under Labor Law § 200 and found violations of Industrial Code provisions under § 241 (6), but only one, regarding insufficient illumination (12 NYCRR 23-1.30), was found to be a proximate cause. The defendant moved to vacate these verdicts. The Supreme Court set aside the § 241 (6) finding but remanded for a new trial, and denied the motion regarding the § 200 claim. On appeal, the higher court reversed, finding the evidence insufficient to support the illumination violation and that any jury charge errors became irrelevant. Furthermore, the court found no evidence of defendant's supervisory control over plaintiff's work or notice of the dangerous condition, thus dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against the defendant.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightLabor Law 200Labor Law 241 (6)CPLR 4404 (a)Jury VerdictProximate CauseSupervisory ControlNotice of Dangerous ConditionIndustrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.30
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ZOLFAGHARI, MOSTAFA v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC

Plaintiff commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after falling from a ladder while removing a satellite dish at a gas station. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) and granted the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing the main complaint. The court also granted Atlanta's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Exxon's third-party complaint for contractual indemnification, citing an express negation of third-party beneficiary intent. On appeal, the higher court rejected the plaintiff's arguments concerning Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), determining the work did not constitute 'alteration' or 'demolition'. Furthermore, Exxon's appeal regarding its coverage under the indemnification agreement was also rejected.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentLadder FallSatellite Dish RemovalAlteration of BuildingDemolitionContractual IndemnificationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 15,390 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