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
Feb 16, 1979

Gross Veneer Co. v. American Mutual Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term in St. Lawrence County, which granted plaintiff, Gross Veneer Company, Inc., partial summary judgment. The dispute arose from a manufacturer’s blanket crime policy issued by defendant, American Mutual Insurance Companies, insuring against employee dishonesty. Plaintiff sought to recover funds embezzled by Chester Shockley, whom it alleged was an employee. The central issue was whether Shockley met the policy’s three-pronged definition of an 'employee,' which required compensation by the insured, the insured's right to govern and direct, and not being a broker or agent. The appellate court found that Special Term improperly relied on unsupported explanations regarding Shockley's compensation by Litchfield Park Corporation and failed to address whether this arrangement affected plaintiff's right to control Shockley or if Shockley acted as plaintiff's agent. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

employee dishonestyinsurance policysummary judgmentcontract interpretationemployment definitionappellate reviewcompensationright to controlcorporate relationsembezzlement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Liz Gross sued her employer, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC), for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). NBC moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, leading to the dismissal of Gross's claims. The court found many of Gross's claims to be time-barred, rejecting the application of the "continuing violation doctrine." For the timely claims, Gross failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, as she could not provide evidence of similarly situated male comparators for pay or demonstrate an adverse employment action or discriminatory animus. NBC successfully articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, which Gross did not prove to be pretextual.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawPay DisparityTimeliness of ClaimsContinuing Violation DoctrinePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
48
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. ADJ12896538
Regular
Sep 16, 2022

DEBORAH GROSS vs. THE BOEING COMPANY, SEDGWICK

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Deborah Gross's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The WCJ found Gross failed to provide evidence or arguments demonstrating why the statute of limitations should not apply to her cumulative trauma claim filed over eight years after the alleged injury. Gross's submitted exhibits and cited case law were found to be either irrelevant, factually distinguishable, or unsupported by the record. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and incorporated it into their decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedStatute of LimitationsPro PerCumulative InjuryDate of InjuryAlleged InjuriesMedical TreatmentCase Law
References
4
Case No. 24388/85, 43236/85
Regular Panel Decision

Martin A. v. Gross

This case consolidates two motions challenging the defendants' failure to provide sufficient preventive services to avoid foster care placement for children, as mandated by State and Federal law. Plaintiffs, including numerous families, sought preliminary injunctions and class certification against the New York State Department of Social Services (NYSDSS) and New York City Human Resources Administration (NYCHRA) and their commissioners. Judge Elliott Wilk found that the defendants failed to meet their statutory obligations, citing numerous examples of non-compliance and systemic deficiencies in providing protective and preventive services. The court granted preliminary injunctive relief, ordering the City to develop a compliant plan and enjoining the State from enforcing an arbitrary 90-day limit on emergency shelter as a preventive service. However, motions for class certification and contempt were denied, as were the City's cross-motions to dismiss and for summary judgment.

Preventive ServicesChild WelfareFoster Care PlacementFamily IntegrityPreliminary InjunctionSocial Services LawNew York State Department of Social ServicesNew York City Human Resources AdministrationHomelessnessHousing Services
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. McMahon

Plaintiff Douglas Gross, alleging disability due to depression, substance abuse, pain, and visual problems, applied for social security benefits. His application was initially denied. After two hearings before an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) and reviews by the Appeals Council, his claim was again denied, with the ALJ finding him capable of light work. Plaintiff sought judicial review, challenging the Commissioner's final determination. The court found that the ALJ improperly rejected the plaintiff's claim of illiteracy without sufficient evidence or adequate investigation, despite conflicting testimony regarding his reading level. The court granted the plaintiff's motion, denied the Commissioner's, and remanded the case for further administrative proceedings, specifically to further develop the record regarding the plaintiff's literacy.

Social SecurityDisability BenefitsALJ DecisionAppeals CouncilJudicial ReviewRemandIlliteracyVocational ExpertFunctional LimitationsCredibility
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Gross v. Three Rivers Inn, Inc.

The court reversed an order, with costs, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division is directed to remand the case to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings concerning the employer-employee relationship. This decision was based on the reasons stated in Justice Paul J. Yesawich Jr.'s dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division. The Chief Judge and other Judges concurred with this decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate Court DecisionDissenting Opinion AdoptedCase RemittedJudicial ReversalCourt of Appeals ReviewProcedural RemandBoard Proceedings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Faraino v. Centennial Insurance

This case addresses whether an insurer, having received a loan receipt from its insured, has a duty of good faith beyond mere payment. The court holds that such a duty is created by equity, implied contractual covenants, and the conflict of interest arising from the insurer's exclusive control over the insured's claims. The plaintiff boat owner alleged the insurers failed to provide independent counsel, policy information, or investigation results, potentially breaching this obligation. Consequently, the insurers' motion for summary judgment and dismissal was denied, affirming their proper joinder as defendants. The court also raises the possibility that the insurers' conduct could constitute a waiver of their subrogation rights.

Good Faith DutyInsurer ObligationsLoan ReceiptSubrogation RightsConflict of InterestInsurance Contract LawSummary Judgment DenialAttorney FeesEquitable PrinciplesContractual Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc.

Plaintiffs Ellen M. Sullivan and Mark Gross filed an antitrust class action lawsuit against New Balance Athletic Shoe, Inc., alleging a vertical resale price maintenance scheme that violated antitrust laws and New York’s Consumer Protection Act. They claimed to have suffered economic injury due to inflated shoe prices. Defendant New Balance moved to dismiss the complaint. District Judge Sweet granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing because they could not demonstrate direct injury from purchasing from conspiring retailers. The court also dismissed the pendent state law claims without prejudice, granting plaintiffs leave to refile the complaint within 30 days, provided they limit the class to those who purchased from conspiring retailers.

AntitrustClass Action LawsuitResale Price MaintenanceSherman Act Section 1Clayton Act Section 4Consumer StandingMotion to DismissEconomic InjuryPrice Fixing SchemeIndirect Purchaser Standing
References
38
Case No. ADJ747812 (LAO 0828642)
Regular
Apr 25, 2013

BENITO ALVARADO vs. GROSS EGG RANCH, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration in the case of Benito Alvarado v. Gross Egg Ranch and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The WCAB found the petition to be untimely and also subject to denial for failing to fairly state material evidence as required by WCAB Rule 10842(a). Specifically, the lien claimant's assertion that the case was never on calendar was contradicted by the electronic record. Therefore, the petition was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyWCAB 10842(a)Material EvidenceFair StatementEAMSEvents RecordCommunications RecordLien ClaimantDismissed
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 358 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