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

General Motors Corp. v. Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp.

Plaintiff General Motors Corp. ("GM") obtained a preliminary injunction against defendants Roth and Gibson Chemical & Oil Corp. for trademark infringement related to "Dexron" automatic transmission fluid. Subsequently, defendants moved the court to permit them to repackage and sell the impounded, allegedly infringing goods, or alternatively, to have GM remove the goods from their warehouse, citing health and safety hazards. GM opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion seeking an order holding defendants in contempt for violating the preliminary injunction by distributing a brochure displaying the "Dexron" mark at a trade show. The Court denied defendants' motions to repackage, sell, or remove the goods. While finding defendants technically in civil contempt for the brochure distribution, the Court decided against immediate sanctions, noting the violation appeared inadvertent and GM had not yet demonstrated actual damages, but ordered defendants to provide an accounting and allowed GM to present proof of damages at trial.

Trademark InfringementPreliminary InjunctionContempt of CourtCivil ContemptRepackaging of GoodsImpoundment OrderAdvertising ViolationCompensatory DamagesSanctionsTrade Show Brochure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. v. Expromtorg International Corp.

The case involves a breach of contract action filed by General Textile Printing & Processing Corp. (GTP), a Connecticut corporation with offices in New York City, against Expromtorg International Corp. and its president, Guennadi Razouvaev, both Michigan residents. The defendants moved to stay the litigation in favor of arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in the original sales notes (OSN), and also sought to dismiss claims against Razouvaev for lack of personal jurisdiction. Plaintiff GTP opposed these motions and filed a cross-motion to stay arbitration, arguing that a later, unsigned settlement stipulation had supplanted the arbitration agreement and that defendants had waived their right to arbitrate through litigation. The Court denied the motion to dismiss Razouvaev, finding a prima facie case for piercing the corporate veil based on alleged fraudulent conduct. Ultimately, the Court denied GTP's cross-motion, ruling that the arbitration agreement in the OSN remained effective and that no waiver of arbitration had occurred, thus granting defendants' motion to stay the entire action pending arbitration.

Breach of ContractArbitrationPersonal JurisdictionCorporate Veil PiercingWaiver of ArbitrationDiversity JurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActSales NotesSettlement StipulationAlter Ego Doctrine
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Hare v. General Marine Transport Corp.

In this opinion, the District Court denied General Marine Transport Corporation's motion to amend a prior judgment that awarded damages to the Trustees of the New York Marine Towing and Transportation Industry Pension Fund and Insurance Fund. General Marine sought to amend the judgment based on the recent Supreme Court ruling in DelCostello v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters, arguing for the application of a six-month limitations period. The court determined that DelCostello specifically applies to "hybrid 301/fair representation" claims and does not necessitate a departure from the previously applied six-year New York state statute of limitations for breach of contract actions, citing Auto Workers v. Hoosier Corp. Therefore, the motion was denied, reaffirming the earlier decision.

Motion to Amend JudgmentStatute of LimitationsLabor LawBreach of ContractFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations ActHybrid 301/Fair Representation ClaimsPension FundInsurance Fund
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alteri v. General Motors Corp.

This order addresses a motion for reconsideration filed by plaintiffs Louis J. Alteri, et al., challenging a March 19, 1996 decision that granted summary judgment to defendants General Motors Corp. and Local Union 854, dismissing the plaintiffs' Labor Management Relations Act lawsuit as untimely. The plaintiffs contended that the court erred in calculating the statute of limitations and in overlooking their argument for equitable tolling. The court reiterated that the six-month limitations period for a hybrid LMRA claim begins when plaintiffs knew or should have known of the union's breach, not the employer's, establishing April 1993 as the starting point. Furthermore, the court found no basis for equitable tolling due to fraudulent concealment, concluding that plaintiffs lacked diligence in discovering their cause of action despite any misleading information. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration was denied.

Labour LawStatute of LimitationsHybrid ClaimBreach of ContractDuty of Fair RepresentationFraudulent ConcealmentEquitable TollingReconsiderationSummary JudgmentUnion Breach
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGurran v. DiCanio Planned Development Corp.

DiCanio Planned Development Corp. (DPD) appealed an order dismissing its third-party complaint against DiCanio Residential Communities Corp. (DRC) in a personal injury action. Both DPD and DRC were additional named insureds under a multi-peril general liability policy issued by General Accident Insurance Company. An employee of DRC was injured at a DPD construction site, and General Accident paid the settlement for DPD. The central issue was whether the common-law antisubrogation rule precluded General Accident from seeking indemnification from DRC. The court determined that the antisubrogation rule did not apply because the General Accident policy contained an employee exclusion, meaning DRC was not covered by General Accident for the specific claims related to its employee's injury. DRC was separately covered by the State Insurance Fund for workers' compensation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied DRC's motion to dismiss, and reinstated the third-party complaint.

Antisubrogation RuleIndemnificationInsurance Policy ExclusionThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation CoverageCommon Law PrinciplesCoverage DisputeSubrogation Rights
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00660
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of Jones v. General Traffic Equip. Corp.

Claimant Renford Jones, who sustained a work-related back injury resulting in a permanent partial disability, sought a hearing to modify his reduced earnings awards. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) modified the awards. The employer, General Traffic Equipment Corp., and the State Insurance Fund (SIF) appealed the WCLJ's decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for Board review was denied due to alleged incompleteness, specifically the omission of the hearing date for their objection. SIF's subsequent application for reconsideration was also denied. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that SIF's response, which provided the exact time of the objection in the digital audio recording of the sole hearing, adequately met the regulatory requirements. The court remitted the matter to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with its decision, dismissing the appeal from the denial of reconsideration as academic.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative ProcedureBoard ReviewRegulatory InterpretationAppellate ReviewProcedural Due ProcessWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeDigital Audio RecordingPleadings and MotionsDisability Benefits
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00962 [202 AD3d 524]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2022

4A Gen. Contr. Corp. v. James

Plaintiffs, 4A General Contracting Corp. and others, sought to recover a $1 million payment made to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) under a plea agreement, which resolved a criminal case concerning failure to pay prevailing wages on public work projects. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the $1 million was a restitution payment, not an escrow, and plaintiffs had no valid claim to recover it. The court also found no basis for plaintiffs to recover from RLI Insurance Co., who received a portion of the restitution through a separate settlement. Furthermore, the denial of plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss RLI Insurance Co.'s counterclaim for indemnification was affirmed.

Prevailing wagesPlea agreementRestitutionGrand larcenyCertified payroll recordsIndemnification counterclaimSummary judgmentCriminal case resolutionAppellate reviewAttorney General
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This consolidated opinion addresses the enforceability of broad indemnification agreements between general contractors and subcontractors under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, especially when the general contractor is found partially negligent. The Court reviewed two appeals: Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. and Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. In both instances, subcontractor employees suffered injuries, leading to claims against general contractors who, in turn, sought contractual indemnification. The Court concluded that because the agreements sought full indemnification, even where the general contractor contributed to the negligence, they were entirely void and unenforceable under the statute. The legislative intent behind § 5-322.1 is to prevent contractors from contractually shifting liability for their own negligence, whether in whole or in part, to subcontractors, thereby affirming the public policy against such clauses.

Indemnification agreementGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Subcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor negligenceConstruction project injuriesWorkers' compensation insuranceCommercial general liabilityStatutory interpretationPublic policyContractual indemnification
References
6
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 786
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.

This case clarifies the enforceability of indemnification agreements in construction contracts under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court of Appeals held that such agreements, if they purport to indemnify a general contractor for any portion of damages caused by its own negligence, are entirely void and unenforceable as against public policy, rather than merely partially unenforceable. The decision stemmed from two consolidated appeals, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Stottlar v Ginsburg Development Corp., where general contractors were found partially negligent for worker injuries. The Court affirmed the judgment in Itri and reversed the Appellate Division's decision in Stottlar, reinstating the Supreme Court's original judgment. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent contractors from shifting liability for their own negligence.

Indemnification AgreementConstruction LawSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceStatutory InterpretationGeneral Obligations LawInsurance CoverageVoid ContractPublic PolicyNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01956
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2023

Footman v. D'Onofrio Gen. Contrs. Corp.

In this case, Eric Footman, an appellant, sued D'Onofrio General Contractors Corp. to recover payment of prevailing wages. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted D'Onofrio's motion to dismiss the complaint against it. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed this decision. The court held that an employment relationship is not a prerequisite to pursue a third-party beneficiary claim for prevailing wages. It clarified that a subcontractor's employees have the right to make a breach of contract claim for underpayment against the general contractor. Furthermore, the court found that sufficient facts were alleged to support alter ego and/or joint employer theories of liability at an early stage of litigation.

Prevailing WagesThird-Party Beneficiary ClaimBreach of ContractGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityAlter Ego TheoryJoint Employer TheoryMotion to DismissAppellate ReversalEmployment Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,739 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