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

United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2010

Paz v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the defendants-respondents' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's complaint. This judgment was unanimously affirmed. An appeal from a related order was dismissed as being subsumed within the appeal from the judgment. The court found that Labor Law § 240 (1) liability did not apply as the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries, having chosen not to use a provided ladder. Additionally, the Labor Law § 200 claim was dismissed due to the defendants' lack of supervisory control over the injury-producing work. Finally, the Industrial Code provisions cited under Labor Law § 241 (6) were deemed inapplicable to the alleged facts of the case.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Sole Proximate CauseSafety DevicesSupervisory ControlIndustrial CodeScaffold SafetyAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 1973

In re the Arbitration between Yorktown Sportswear Co. & Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

The case involves a small garment manufacturer, the petitioner, who sought to relocate operations from New York City to Florida, violating a collective bargaining agreement with the New York Joint Board. An impartial chairman, the designated arbitrator, issued awards directing workers to return to employment, ordering the employer to cease relocation activities, and later found the employer violated an injunction, ordering a $25,000 bond for damages. Special Term concluded arbitrator misconduct, warranting a replacement. The Supreme Court modified the judgment, deleting the provision for a court-appointed arbitrator and returning all disputes to the impartial chairman for a final and binding award, affirming the judgment as modified. The court found no warrant for removing the impartial chairman, noting that his awards were non-final, incomplete, and vacatable under CPLR 7511.

collective bargainingarbitration disputeplant relocationinjunctionarbitrator authoritycontract violationCPLR 7511labor lawSupreme Court decisionjudgment modification
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartels v. Rubel Corp.

The plaintiff, chairman of the Brewery Workers’ Pension Fund, seeks to hold an unnamed defendant accountable for an uncollected judgment exceeding $10,000. This judgment was originally obtained against Ebling Brewing Company, Inc., for unpaid pension fund contributions. The plaintiff alleges that Ebling was the defendant's wholly-owned subsidiary, operating as its agent under the defendant's extensive control. While the defendant moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff concurrently pursued discovery and inspection of the defendant's records. The court granted the plaintiff's discovery motion and decided to hold the summary judgment motion in abeyance, emphasizing the necessity for the plaintiff to access facts uniquely within the defendant's knowledge before a final determination.

Summary JudgmentDiscoveryCorporate VeilParent-Subsidiary LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsPension FundJudgment EnforcementInterlocutory OrderProcedural RulingAffiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 2014

Matter of Burke v. Sobral

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County. The judgment, entered on August 12, 2014, affirmed an arbitrator's partial and final awards. These awards granted petitioners Edmund and Suzanne D. Burke a sum of $2,003,290.33. The respondent argued that the arbitrator exceeded his power and that the liability finding was irrational, citing CPLR 7511 [b] [1] [iii]. However, the court found that the arbitrator acted within his authority and that the finding of liability was not totally irrational, thus unanimously affirming the judgment.

Arbitration confirmationArbitrator authorityJudgment affirmationAppellate reviewCivil Practice Law and RulesContract disputeFinancial awardDamagesJudicial precedentNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2015

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. BSB Construction, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order and judgment granting summary judgment to the plaintiff, a workers' compensation carrier, against the defendant for unpaid workers' compensation premiums totaling $68,380.39. The plaintiff commenced the action after a final audit determined the outstanding balance. The defendant appealed, arguing against the summary judgment based on triable issues of fact, non-requirement for administrative appeal for employee classifications, non-binding signature of its office manager, and non-responsibility for uninsured subcontractor premiums. The Supreme Court affirmed the decision, finding that the defendant failed to challenge employment classifications within the required 12-month window, admitted the authority of its office manager's signatures on audit forms, and was responsible for uninsured subcontractor premiums under its policy.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPayroll ClassificationUninsured Subcontractor LiabilityWorkers' Compensation Insurance PolicyAudit StatementsOffice Manager AuthorityCPLR 3212Workers' Compensation Law § 56
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Grasso & Grasso

This case involves appeals stemming from a CPLR article 75 proceeding concerning an arbitration award between family members, the Grassos. Initially, the Supreme Court partially vacated the arbitration award, which was later modified by the Appellate Division, reinstating a provision for an arbitration hearing to determine asset valuation. During these proceedings, petitioners successfully moved to hold Joseph F. Grasso Jr. in contempt for non-compliance, leading to a judgment against him. On appeal, the court determined that the Supreme Court should have vacated its judgment upon reconsideration, especially after the Appellate Division's decision to reinstate the arbitration provision. Consequently, the judgments against Grasso Jr. were vacated, and the matter of any final judgment was held in abeyance pending further arbitration to determine the value of Trans-American.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Contempt ProceedingJudgment VacationReconsideration MotionAppellate ReviewEstate LawFamily DisputeArbitration EnforcementOffsetting Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicholas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a wrongful death action, plaintiff Eugenie Nicholas and third-party defendant Erie Conduit Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 1, 1982, which denied their motion to vacate a prior judgment dated September 16, 1981. The appellate court found that the trial court's original judgment improperly structured the parties' rights and liabilities concerning a $365,000 settlement, diverging from the jury's verdict and the court's indemnification ruling. Specifically, it prejudiced the plaintiff's right to full recovery from main defendants and incorrectly authorized recovery against the decedent's employer. Treating the motion as one to vacate, the appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and vacated the final paragraph of the 1981 judgment, substituting provisions that properly reflect the parties' liabilities and indemnification obligations based on the jury verdict and the court's earlier ruling.

Wrongful DeathIndemnificationContributionJudgment VacatedJury VerdictApportionment of LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureDamages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 11,240 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