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. 2017 NY Slip Op 06429
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2017

Estate of Goldstein v. Kingston

The Estate of Alter A. Goldstein brought a wrongful death action after Alter A. Goldstein sustained fatal injuries when struck by a vehicle driven by defendant Debbie Miketta and owned by defendant Jonathan Kingston. The accident occurred when Miketta was reversing her vehicle on a one-way street due to workers from defendant Forest Hills Garden Corporation (FHGC) performing work. The Supreme Court granted FHGC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against it. On appeal by the plaintiffs, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that FHGC's conduct merely created the condition for the accident and was not a proximate cause. The Court concluded that Miketta's decision to reverse her vehicle was the sole proximate cause of the decedent's injuries, and consequently dismissed the separate appeal by Kingston and Miketta.

Wrongful deathSummary judgmentNegligenceProximate causeMotor vehicle accidentAppellate reviewAffirmed decisionDismissed appealLiabilityEstate law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First Tech. Capital, Inc. v. Airborne, Inc.

Plaintiff First Technology Capital, Inc. initiated an action against Airborne, Inc. d/b/a/ Firstflight for breach of contract. After a series of court decisions, including a vacatur by the Second Circuit and a subsequent default judgment in favor of the plaintiff, the case was closed. The plaintiff then filed a motion to alter the judgment, seeking to remove the language that closed the case to facilitate post-judgment discovery. The court denied this motion, clarifying that reopening the case is unnecessary for a judgment creditor to pursue post-judgment discovery under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 69(a)(2), as courts retain ancillary jurisdiction to enforce judgments.

Post-judgment discoveryFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 69Ancillary jurisdictionJudgment enforcementMotion to alter judgmentCase closureJudgment creditorDistrict Court ProcedureDiscovery scopeWestern District of New York
References
12
Case No. CV-23-1834
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2025

Matter of Gunness v. Prime Piping & Heating Inc.

Claimant Arnold Gunness appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board denying his claim for causally-related injuries to his neck, back, and left knee. Gunness initially filed a claim for a right foot fracture sustained in June 2020. Later, he filed a second claim alleging additional injuries to his neck, back, and left knee due to an altered gait and cane usage following the foot injury. Medical opinions conflicted; a podiatrist's opinion was disregarded, and a physiatrist's opinion on causation was deemed unpersuasive due to claimant's inconsistent accounts and lack of understanding of the mechanism of injury for the additional body parts. An orthopedic surgeon also could not establish a causal connection. The WCLJ and the Board found that the claimant failed to establish a causal connection, citing a lack of credible medical evidence and the claimant's inconsistent accounts. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence.

CausationWorkers' CompensationInjury ClaimMedical EvidenceCredibility DeterminationBoard AuthorityAppellate ReviewAltered GaitRight Foot FractureNeck Injury
References
8
Case No. ADJ7662819
Regular
Apr 27, 2015

JEWELL McKEE vs. MARTEN'S TRANSPORT, LTD, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant alleging industrial injuries to various body parts, including psyche, hearing, and gait disorder, following a fall. The defendant sought reconsideration of the original award, primarily challenging the findings of psyche injury and gait disorder, as well as the award of temporary disability and a permanent disability increase. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, deferring the issues of gait disorder and all permanent disability findings due to insufficient medical evidence on gait causation and the improper piecemeal determination of permanent disability. The Board otherwise affirmed the findings of industrial injury to psyche, additional temporary disability, and ordered further medical evaluation by an AME or IME.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMarten's TransportACE American InsuranceIndustrial InjuryPsyche InjuryGait DisorderPermanent DisabilityLabor Code Section 4658(d)(2)Temporary DisabilityAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Oberdorfer Foundries, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a parent corporation's liability for workers' compensation claims of a subsidiary's employee. The Supreme Court initially determined that Oswego Castings Corp., the employer, was the alter ego of its parent, Oberdorfer Foundries, Inc. The appellate court found this determination to be erroneous as a matter of law, clarifying that for corporations to be considered alter egos, the parent must directly intervene and completely dominate the subsidiary's everyday operations, a standard not met by the evidence presented. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the complaint, mandating that the alter ego issue be determined at trial.

Alter Ego DoctrineCorporate LiabilityParent-Subsidiary RelationshipSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate DecisionCorporate DominationWorkers' Compensation LiabilityEmployment RelationshipReinstatement of ComplaintTrial Determination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2004

Local Union No. 38, Sheet Metal Workers' International Ass'n v. a & M Heating, Air Conditioning, Ventilation & Sheet Metal, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Local Union Number 38 and A & M Heating, with the Union alleging A & M Heating is the alter ego of Hudson Heating to enforce a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and compel arbitration. The court first clarified its jurisdiction, affirming its ability to determine alter ego status but not to impose post-expiration obligations under the NLRA. After examining factors such as management, business purpose, equipment, operations, customers, supervision, common ownership, and anti-union animus, the court concluded there was insufficient evidence to establish alter ego status. Consequently, the Union's motion to compel arbitration was denied, and the complaint was dismissed with prejudice, with judgment entered in favor of the defendant.

Labor LawAlter Ego DoctrineCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationSubject Matter JurisdictionLMRA Section 301NLRABankruptcyChapter 7Summary Judgment
References
57
Case No. 10-CV-0347
Regular Panel Decision

Sentry Insurance v. Brand Management Inc.

Sentry Insurance initiated actions against Brand Management, Inc., Budget Services, Inc., and Hershel Weber for claims including breach of contract and alter ego liability, arising from workers' compensation insurance policies. Brand and Budget, controlled by Weber, allegedly breached the casualty agreement by failing to pay Sentry, leading to significant unpaid claims. The defendants engaged in recalcitrant discovery behavior, resulting in a preclusion order against their alter ego defense. The Court found Weber completely dominated Brand and Budget, using this domination to undercapitalize them and render them judgment-proof, thereby committing a wrong against Sentry. Consequently, the Court granted Sentry's motion for partial summary judgment on breach of contract against Brand and Budget, and on alter ego liability against Weber, while denying the defendants' cross-motion.

Breach of ContractAlter Ego LiabilityCorporate Veil PiercingSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation InsuranceCorporate UndercapitalizationInter-company Fund TransfersDiscovery SanctionsCorporate FormalitiesInsurance Dispute
References
30
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06061 [165 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2018

Mananghaya v. Bronx-Lebanon Hosp. Ctr.

Decedent Tristan Michael Mananghaya was killed while disconnecting a rented chiller from Bronx Lebanon Hospital Center's air conditioning system. Plaintiffs, Mananghaya's wife and children, sought damages under Labor Law § 240 (1). The primary issue on appeal was whether the work performed constituted an 'alteration' under the statute. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the motion court's decision, finding that the complex process of integrating and de-integrating the chiller, which significantly affected the hospital's crucial building-wide cooling system, indeed qualified as an alteration. The court emphasized that a change in structural integrity is not always required for Labor Law § 240 (1) coverage, especially when a significant building system's function is altered. Consequently, plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was granted, and defendants' motions for dismissal were denied.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Alteration of structureConstruction accidentFalling objectSummary judgmentAppellate reviewChiller installationAir conditioning systemIndustrial accidentWorker fatality
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Len v. State

Decedent, an employee of New York State Canal Corporation, tragically died after falling from a movable dam on the Erie Canal while clearing debris. His father, as administrator, subsequently filed a wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering claim against the Corporation, the State of New York, and the New York State Thruway Authority. Defendants moved to dismiss, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity. The Court of Claims granted the dismissal, deeming the New York State Thruway Authority an alter ego of the Corporation and thus entitled to the exclusivity defense, and also found proposed Labor Law claims against the State lacked merit. The appellate court affirmed, concurring that the Corporation was an alter ego of the Authority for workers' compensation purposes and that the decedent's work constituted routine maintenance, not alteration or construction under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).

Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivityalter ego doctrineLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)routine maintenancesignificant physical changeconstruction workwrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingparent-subsidiary relationship
References
35
Case No. 07 Civ. 4627 (LLS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2009

Board of Managers of the 195 Hudson Street Condominium v. Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff Board of Managers of the 195 Hudson Street Condominium filed a diversity action against Jeffrey M. Brown Associates (JMB), seeking to declare JMB an alter-ego of K & J Construction Co., L.P. to recover an outstanding state court judgment against K&J. JMB moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting defenses of res judicata, collateral estoppel, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. The court found the Rooker-Feldman doctrine inapplicable. Reviewing two prior state court proceedings (Northeast Litigation and Conversion Litigation), the court determined that the alter-ego claim was not barred by res judicata or collateral estoppel concerning the Northeast Litigation, primarily due to lack of adversity and a full and fair opportunity to litigate for the Board. However, the court ruled that the Board's alter-ego claim was barred by res judicata concerning the Conversion Litigation, as the claim arose from the same transaction and should have been raised in that prior proceeding. Consequently, JMB's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted with prejudice.

Res JudicataCollateral EstoppelRooker-Feldman DoctrineCorporate Veil PiercingAlter-ego LiabilityMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)State Court JudgmentConstruction DefectBreach of Contract
References
86
Showing 1-10 of 467 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