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. 05 Civ. 606
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. Istar Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff Kenneth Thomas sued iStar Financial, Inc. and Ed Baron for race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and the NYCHRL. Defendants sought summary judgment on all claims, citing Thomas's poor performance and denying discriminatory intent. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants on Thomas's hostile work environment, disparate treatment, and certain retaliation claims (continuing hostile work environment, threats, reprimands, and negative references). However, the Court denied summary judgment on Thomas's claims for discriminatory termination and retaliation in the form of termination, finding that genuine issues of material fact precluded a full dismissal.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII ClaimsNYCHRL ClaimsSummary Judgment MotionEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentWrongful TerminationFederal Litigation
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reda v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Plaintiffs, former managers of Videk, sued Eastman Kodak Company (Kodak) and Eastman Technology, Inc. (ETI) for alleged breach of a "Long Term Incentive Plan" (LTIP). They sought payment under a merger clause, contending a payout was triggered when Videk was removed from ETI and merged into Kodak. Defendants argued that no merger occurred and that Videk was not financially successful, a prerequisite for any payout under the LTIP. The court concluded that the LTIP indeed required financial success for a payout and found that Videk was not financially successful, having sustained significant cumulative losses. Furthermore, plaintiffs failed to establish that Videk was merged into Kodak, as it maintained its separate identity as a division of ETI. The court also determined that defendants did not breach their implied contractual obligation of good faith and fair dealing, as they acted within their contractual discretion. Consequently, the amended judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Contract disputeMerger clauseFinancial success conditionBreach of contractGood faith and fair dealingImplied obligationVenture managementLong Term Incentive PlanCorporate structureEmployee compensation
References
8
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
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
Case No. 13-CV-675
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2016

Pierre v. Planet Automotive, Inc.

Plaintiff Ghislaine Pierre sued Planet Automotive, Inc. and American Suzuki Financial Services alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA), Magnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty Act (MMWA), and state law claims of fraud and false advertising arising from her vehicle purchase and its financing. Defendant Suzuki moved for summary judgment. The Court denied Suzuki's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's TILA claim and state law claims, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding TILA disclosures and applying New York's assignee liability law for state claims. However, the Court granted Suzuki's motion for summary judgment as to Plaintiff's MMWA claim, concluding that the MMWA prohibits assignee liability where the assignee did not create the written warranty.

TILA violationMagnuson-Moss Consumer Warranty ActCommon law fraudFalse advertisingSummary judgmentAssignee liabilityRetail Installment ContractVehicle purchaseFinance chargesDisclosure statement
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. Sam Greco Construction Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. (M & L), suffered serious injuries after sliding off a roof at a construction site while attempting to access safety equipment. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Sam Greco Construction, Inc., and other entities, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, on appeal, the court determined that the safety equipment provided was improperly stored and not adequately placed, constituting a statutory violation that proximately caused the plaintiff's fall. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's actions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, nor did the recalcitrant worker doctrine apply. The judgment was modified, denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leaving only the determination of damages.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineRoofingFall from Height
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Raymond & Whitcomb Co.

The United States, on behalf of the Postal Service, sued Raymond & Whitcomb Co. (R&W) for misusing non-profit mail rates, resulting in a $398,960.05 deficiency, bringing claims under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, unjust enrichment, and the False Claims Act. The court found that R&W, a for-profit entity, collaborated with non-profit institutions (Metropolitan Museum of Art and Smithsonian Institution) on travel programs, and its significant financial stake in these ventures made the mailings ineligible for non-profit rates. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the United States on the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act and unjust enrichment claims, ordering R&W to pay the deficiency. However, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the False Claims Act count, determining that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding R&W's knowledge of the falsity of the mailing statements—specifically, whether their actions constituted reckless disregard or mere negligence. The case will proceed to trial to resolve the scienter element of the False Claims Act claim, while the debt for the misused postage is established.

Mail fraudNon-profit mail rateFalse Claims ActFederal Debt Collection Procedure ActUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentCooperative mailingsPostal Service regulationsScienterReckless disregard
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2000

Ackerman v. National Financial Systems

The plaintiff, Diana Benincasa, initiated an action against her former employer, National Financial Systems, Inc. (NFS), Robert Barbarello, and Robert Hernandez, alleging sexual harassment under the New York Human Rights Law and common law assault and battery. The case, originally filed in New York State Supreme Court, Nassau County, was removed to federal court. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims, but Benincasa consented to the dismissal of assault and battery claims against Barbarello and NFS. The court, presided over by District Judge Spatt, denied the defendants' remaining summary judgment contentions, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding Barbarello's alleged sexual harassment, NFS's vicarious liability for Hernandez's conduct, and Benincasa's alleged failure to mitigate damages. Consequently, the case was set for trial.

Sexual harassmentHostile work environmentSummary judgmentAssault and batteryVicarious liabilityMitigation of damagesNew York Human Rights LawTitle VIIFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureBankruptcy trustee
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1982

Benjamin v. City of New York

Plaintiffs James Corey Benjamin, Kevin Wiggins, Dorothy Benjamin, June Wiggins, and Robert Wiggins sought damages for personal injuries sustained by the infant plaintiffs James, Kevin, and Robert on a city-owned vacant lot in 1974. The infants were severely burned when another youth ignited a flammable substance near a pipe. A jury initially awarded judgments to the plaintiffs and their parents. On appeal, the Supreme Court, Bronx County, reversed the judgment and dismissed the complaint. The court found that the defendant, The City, was not negligent, as the intervening acts of the unidentified youth were the proximate cause of the injuries, and the lot's condition was merely the location, not the cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseVacant LotCity LiabilityJury Verdict ReversalComplaint DismissalForeseeabilityInfant InjuriesExplosion Accident
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co. v. Interstate Distribution, Inc. (In Re Interstate Cigar Co.)

This Memorandum Decision addresses the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding damages in an adversary proceeding. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co., Inc. sued Interstate Distribution, Inc. and Congress Financial Corporation, alleging violations of Article 6 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Bulk Sales Law). A New York State Appellate Court had already determined Congress's liability for violating the Bulk Sales Law. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, was tasked with determining the appropriate damages. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, concluding that Congress is liable for the value of the inventory and equipment transferred, fixing damages at $14,976,662.00. The decision also awarded prejudgment interest to compensate the Plaintiff for Congress's wrongful retention of asset value, with the specific interest rate to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Bankruptcy LawBulk Sales LawUniform Commercial Code Article 6Summary JudgmentDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestFraudulent ConveyanceAsset TransferCreditor ProtectionTrustee Powers
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 9,142 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