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

Richard v. Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard filed a class action lawsuit against Hoechst Celanese Chemical Group, Inc., Shell Oil Co., and E.I. DuPont de Nemours & Co., alleging damages from defective polybutylene plumbing systems and asserting RICO and Due Process claims. The court asserted subject matter jurisdiction over the RICO claim but dismissed the Due Process claim based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The plaintiff's motion for preliminary class certification was denied, citing Fifth Circuit precedent on the difficulty of certifying RICO class actions due to the individual reliance requirement. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss for failure to state a claim, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish direct reliance on alleged misrepresentations as mandated by controlling Fifth Circuit precedent, Summit Properties v. Hoechst Celanese Corp. The court also rejected arguments for equitable relief under RICO as a way to avoid the reliance requirement.

Class ActionRICODue Process ClaimSubject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)Rule 12(b)(6)Class Certification DeniedSettlement Approval DeniedProximate CauseDirect Reliance
References
38
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07121 [188 AD3d 1292]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Villada v. 452 Fifth Owners, LLC

The plaintiff, Carlos Villada, was allegedly injured while working on a roof demolition project at property owned by 452 Fifth Owners, LLC. He was injured when a wheeled dumpster he was pulling up a plywood ramp tipped over. Villada commenced an action against 452 Fifth Owners, LLC, alleging common-law negligence and a violation of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court denied 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment dismissing these causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting 452 Fifth's motion for summary judgment. The court found that 452 Fifth established, prima facie, that it did not create or have actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition and did not have the authority to supervise or control the work. The cross-appeal by CBRE, Inc. was dismissed.

Personal InjuryRoof DemolitionSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReversalLabor Law ComplianceDangerous ConditionSupervision and Control
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. v. Transport Workers of America, Local 100

Plaintiffs Fifth Avenue Coach Lines, Inc. and Surface Transit, Inc. sued Transport Workers of America, Local 100, Transport Workers of America, and Michael J. Quill for damages alleging a breach of collective bargaining agreements following a 1962 strike. The Union defendants moved for a stay of proceedings pending arbitration, arguing the dispute fell within the arbitration clauses of their agreements. Defendant Michael J. Quill moved to dismiss the action against him, contending that Section 301(a) of the Taft-Hartley Act does not permit actions against individual union officers. The court found the arbitration clauses sufficiently broad to cover the strike issue and granted the stay of proceedings. Additionally, the court granted Quill's motion to dismiss, citing Supreme Court precedent that such actions are against the union, not its president.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStrikeTaft-Hartley ActMotion to StayMotion to DismissUnion LiabilityIndividual LiabilityNo-Strike ClauseGrievance Procedure
References
4
Case No. 04-0550
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2006

Fifth Club, Inc. and David A. West v. Roberto Ramirez

The Supreme Court of Texas addressed the liability of an employer for the acts of an independent contractor providing security services. The case stemmed from an incident at Club Rodéo where security guard David West, an independent contractor, injured Roberto Ramirez, who subsequently sued Fifth Club, Inc. (the owner) and West. Ramirez argued for vicarious liability against Fifth Club based on a "personal character exception" for security work, and alleged negligence and malice in West's hiring. The Court declined to adopt a distinct personal character exception, asserting that employer liability is governed by existing control or nondelegable duty exceptions. Finding insufficient evidence that Fifth Club controlled West's actions or was negligent/malicious in his hiring, the Court reversed the judgment against Fifth Club, Inc. However, the Court affirmed the award of future mental anguish damages against David West, finding sufficient evidence to support this claim.

Independent Contractor LiabilityVicarious LiabilityPersonal Character ExceptionSecurity ServicesNegligent HiringMaliceFuture Mental Anguish DamagesPremises LiabilityNondelegable DutyTortious Acts
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ifill v. Saha Food Stores

Plaintiff Humphrey Ifill, an electrician, sustained severe burn injuries on January 17, 1994, while replacing a circuit breaker in an energized electrical panel at a supermarket owned by defendants Saha Food Stores, Pioneer Supermarkets, and 5610 Fifth Realty Corporation. He alleged that the store manager and owner refused his requests to de-energize the circuit, thereby forcing him to work under unsafe conditions. Ifill filed an action against the defendants, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence. During the proceedings, the plaintiff voluntarily withdrew his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, concluding that there was a triable issue of fact concerning the defendants' control over the plaintiff's work methods.

Electrician InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkSupervisory ControlEnergized EquipmentBurn InjuriesComparative Negligence
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A. Soloff & Son, Inc. v. Asher

A. Soloff & Son, Inc. challenged the constitutionality of the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) regarding withdrawal liability, alleging violations of the Fifth Amendment (due process and takings clause), the Seventh Amendment (right to a jury trial), and the Fifth Amendment's equal protection clause. The District Court for the Southern District of New York denied Soloff's motion for summary judgment, finding the MPPAA constitutional, consistent with Supreme Court and Circuit Court precedents. The court dismissed Soloff's complaint and granted the Fund's cross-motion for summary judgment, affirming Soloff's withdrawal liability due to failure to timely arbitrate.

MPPAAERISAWithdrawal LiabilityConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentSeventh AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionSummary Judgment Motion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1989

Berrios v. 1115 Fifth Avenue Corp.

Ricardo Berrios, an employee of Opal Window Cleaning Company, suffered injuries from a four-story fall while cleaning a window. He initiated a lawsuit against the building owner, 1115 Fifth Avenue Corporation, and its managing agent, Douglas-Elliman, Gibbons & Ives, who subsequently impleaded Opal Window Cleaning Company and the apartment residents, the Heironimuses. A jury determined that Berrios was 100% responsible for his injuries due to his failure to wear a provided safety belt, which was found to be in good condition. On appeal, the core issue was whether the owner and agent were liable under Labor Law § 202 for Berrios's failure to use safety devices. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, clarifying that while Labor Law § 202 mandates owners to provide safe means, it does not extend responsibility to ensure the worker's utilization of such safety equipment.

Window Cleaning AccidentLabor Law 202Safety BeltPersonal InjuryAppellate AffirmationOwner LiabilityAgent LiabilityEmployer LiabilityThird-Party LiabilityComparative Negligence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Circuit City Stores, Inc. v. Curry

Circuit City Stores, Inc. and Diana Beaufils filed an original petition for writ of mandamus challenging the trial court’s denial of their request to compel Ronald Giacoma to arbitration. Giacoma, a former employee, initially agreed to an arbitration program but later sued for retaliatory discharge after being fired. The court examined whether an enforceable arbitration agreement existed, considering Giacoma's arguments of no agreement, fraudulent inducement, and unconscionability. The appellate court found a valid agreement under the Federal Arbitration Act and determined the trial court abused its discretion by not enforcing it. Consequently, the writ of mandamus was conditionally granted, ordering arbitration and a stay of the civil action.

Arbitration AgreementMandamusRetaliatory DischargeEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract EnforcementAbuse of DiscretionOpt-out ProvisionFraudulent Inducement DefenseUnconscionability Defense
References
16
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03852 [161 AD3d 1183]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Munzon v. Victor at Fifth, LLC

Juan P. Munzon, a laborer, was injured during demolition work when he fell from a wooden beam after detaching his safety harness to help a coworker move a heavy metal beam. The metal beam struck the wooden beam, causing Munzon to fall from the fourth to the third floor. Munzon sued Victor at Fifth, LLC, and a general contractor/construction manager, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted summary judgment to Munzon on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied the defendants' motion to dismiss. A jury subsequently awarded Munzon damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that Munzon established a prima facie case under Labor Law § 240 (1) due to inadequate safety equipment, and found that the jury's awards for past and future pain and suffering and future medical expenses were reasonable and did not materially deviate from reasonable compensation.

Personal InjuryLabor Law ViolationElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentLiabilityDamages AwardPain and SufferingMedical ExpensesAppellate ReviewConstruction Accident
References
27
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24241
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Cipriani Fifth Ave., LLC v. RPCI Landmark Props., LLC

Cipriani Fifth Avenue, LLC, operating the Rainbow Room at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, sought a preliminary injunction against its landlord, RCPI Landmark Properties, LLC, to prevent the implementation of new security measures, specifically metal detectors, applicable only to Cipriani's employees and guests. Cipriani alleged that these measures constituted a breach of lease, irreparable harm to its reputation and business, and discriminatory enforcement of rules. The defendant argued that heightened security was necessary in a post-9/11 world and permissible under the lease. The court analyzed the three prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury, and a balancing of the equities. The court denied the injunction, finding that Cipriani failed to establish a prima facie showing of likelihood of success on the merits, as the lease granted the landlord the right to alter security systems and the rules and regulations were not applied in a discriminatory fashion.

Landlord-Tenant DisputePreliminary InjunctionLease BreachCommercial PropertyBuilding SecurityIrreparable InjuryEquity BalancingContract InterpretationDiscriminatory PracticeRockefeller Center
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 2,163 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