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

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
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. 2015 NY Slip Op 30039[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2015

Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. v. Zurich American Insurance

Plaintiffs Extell West 57th Street and Lend Lease (US) Construction LMB Inc. sued their insurers, including Zurich and Travelers, after a construction crane at the One57 building was damaged by Superstorm Sandy. The insurers denied coverage under a builder's risk policy, leading to a dispute over whether the crane qualified as a 'temporary work' and if it was excluded as 'contractor's tools.' The lower court denied summary judgment, finding factual issues. On appeal, the majority granted summary judgment to the defendants, declaring no coverage. The dissenting opinion argues that the crane should be considered a 'temporary structure' and the 'contractor's tools' exclusion should not apply, but concurs that summary judgment for plaintiffs was improper due to a factual dispute regarding whether the crane's value was included in the total project value.

Insurance coverage disputeBuilder's risk policyTemporary structuresContractor's tools exclusionSuperstorm SandyConstruction crane damageSummary judgmentContract interpretationEjusdem generisNoscitur a sociis
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubery v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc.

Yvette Rubery, a former manager at The Body Shop, initiated a collective action alleging misclassification as an "exempt" employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, seeking unpaid overtime wages. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Rubery met the executive exemption criteria, while Rubery cross-moved for partial summary judgment, contesting her primary duties were managerial and disputing the number of employees she supervised. The court denied both summary judgment motions, citing the presence of material factual disputes concerning Rubery's primary job responsibilities and the actual hours of subordinate supervision. Additionally, the court addressed the interpretation of "customary and regular" supervision and the inclusion of non-working hours in supervision calculations, deferring final rulings on these issues for factual determination. The defendant's motion to strike certain evidence submitted by the plaintiff was granted.

FLSAOvertime PayExecutive ExemptionEmployee MisclassificationSummary JudgmentPrimary Duty TestManagerial ResponsibilitiesSubordinate SupervisionNew York Labor LawFederal Rules of Evidence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Homestead Village Assoc., L.P. v. Diamond State Insurance

Plaintiff Homestead Village Associates, LP sued its insurers, Diamond State Insurance Company and Chubb Insurance Company of New Jersey, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding their duty to defend and indemnify Homestead in a personal injury action. Homestead also sued its insurance broker, Capacity Coverage Company of New Jersey, for breach of contract and negligence due to late notification of the accident. All parties cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted Diamond's motion, finding Homestead's 16-month delay in notification unreasonable. Chubb's motion was granted in part and denied in part, as the court found late notice from Homestead, but a factual dispute remained regarding Chubb's timely disclaimer. The court also clarified that Chubb's excess policy would not 'drop down' to cover primary obligations and it had no duty to defend. Homestead's and Capacity's cross-motions for summary judgment were denied, with factual disputes remaining regarding a special relationship and Capacity's knowledge of the accident's seriousness.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary Judgment MotionLate Notice DefenseExcess Insurance PolicyInsurance Broker LiabilityBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimChoice of LawNew York Insurance Law
References
41
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07285
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2022

Northacker v. County of Ulster

Plaintiff Joyce A. Northacker was injured in a car accident while being transported by volunteer Barbara Hyde through the Neighbor to Neighbor program, a joint effort by the County of Ulster and Jewish Family Services (JFS). Hyde lost control of her vehicle, which then collided with a public bus driven by Carla F. Bryant. Northacker initiated actions against the County, JFS, Bryant, and Burton Gulnick Jr., the administrator of Hyde's estate. The Supreme Court partially granted Northacker's motion for summary judgment on liability against the County, JFS, and Gulnick. The Appellate Division affirmed the County's vicarious liability for Hyde's negligence based on judicial estoppel. However, the court reversed the summary judgment against JFS, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding its control over Hyde. The Appellate Division also dismissed the complaint against Bryant, determining she reacted reasonably to an emergency situation. Lastly, the court affirmed the denial of JFS's motion for summary judgment concerning the County's cross-claims for contractual and common-law indemnification, again due to existing factual disputes.

Vicarious LiabilitySummary JudgmentRespondeat SuperiorJudicial EstoppelEmergency DoctrineNegligenceIndemnificationContractual ObligationVolunteer Driver ProgramAgency Relationship
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carpenter v. Miller

Plaintiff, a gas pump attendant, was injured when a customer's car, operated by a co-worker, suddenly moved forward, striking him. The defendant customer had left her car running and unattended. Plaintiff sued the defendant for negligence. The defendant then initiated a third-party action against the co-worker and the service station owner. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing no factual issues existed and failure to state a cause of action. Special Term denied this motion, finding triable factual issues. This appeal affirmed Special Term's decision, holding that the complaint stated a cause of action in negligence and that factual disputes precluded summary judgment. The court also clarified that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6) did not bar the action against the third-party owner for her own negligence, and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1210 (a) was not applicable as the car was not "unattended" under the statute.

NegligencePersonal InjurySummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissWorkers' Compensation ImmunityThird-Party LiabilityVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate CauseDuty of CareAppellate Court Decision
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,348 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