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

Hanna v. Clarke

Albert J. Hanna, an executive delegate of Buffalo Local No. 1, brought an action against Paul J. Clarke, president of the Empire State Telephone Workers’ Organization, seeking a declaratory judgment. Hanna challenged his removal by the union's executive committee for allegedly not taking an active part in a meeting. He argued he was deprived of a fair hearing, as his request for postponement due to dental surgery was denied, and that his actions did not warrant charges under the union's constitution. The court found that while Hanna's actions were "childish, undignified and irritating," they did not justify the charges. Consequently, the court granted Hanna a declaratory judgment, declaring the executive committee's action null and void and enjoining them from disapproving his redesignation on the grounds previously stated.

Declaratory JudgmentUnion LawExecutive DelegateFair HearingDue ProcessUnion ConstitutionInternal Union DisputeWorkers' RightsPostponement RefusalExecutive Committee
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rainey v. Jefferson Village Condo No. 11 Associates

The plaintiffs, including Thomas E. Rainey, appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied their motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing their personal injury complaint. Rainey had sustained injuries after falling from a roof while working for Montrose Construction, Inc., which was the sole general partner of the defendant, Jefferson Village Condo No. 11 Associates. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 barred the action against the partnership because it was considered one entity with Rainey's employer for workers' compensation purposes. The court also upheld the denial of the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint to add new direct claims, citing their undue delay in making the motion. Consequently, the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy remained their workers' compensation claim against Montrose.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation BarExclusive RemedyPartnership LiabilityEmployer ImmunitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAmended ComplaintLabor Law Violations
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05190 [198 AD3d 1280]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2021

Mansour v. Paddock Chevrolet, Inc.

Plaintiff Hanna G. Mansour, a car salesman for Paddock Chevrolet, Inc., sustained personal injuries during a test drive with a customer, Kent P. Neubeck, when their vehicle collided with another operated by Santino C. Lococo. Mansour received workers' compensation benefits. Paddock Chevrolet, Inc. moved to dismiss the amended complaint and cross claims against it, asserting they were barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, dismissing the amended complaint against Paddock Chevrolet, Inc. on the grounds of employer immunity, but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the cross claims, converting them into third-party complaints, stating that the determination of 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 was premature without discovery.

Workers' Compensation LawEmployer ImmunityVicarious LiabilityDual Capacity DoctrineGrave InjuryCross ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintsPersonal InjuryMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03703
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2020

Matter of Djukic v. Hanna Andersson, LLC

Claimant Anela Djukic, a sales lead for Hanna Andersson, LLC, slipped and fell inside a shopping mall entrance on her way to work. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established her claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, finding the injury did not arise out of and in the course of her employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, reiterating that for off-premises accidents to be compensable, there must be a special hazard at the location and a close association of the access route with the employment premises. The court found no evidence that the chosen entrance served a business purpose, was controlled by the employer, or presented a risk specifically related to claimant's employment, concluding the wet ground condition was a general danger to any passerby.

off-premises injurygoing and coming rulespecial hazard exceptionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate Divisionslip and fallmall entrancecourse of employmentarise out of employmentemployer control
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06763 [222 AD3d 1013]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2023

Rodriguez v. 27-11 49th Ave. Realty, LLC

The plaintiff, Tomas Rodriguez, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted summary judgment to defendant Mana Products, Inc., dismissing the complaint against it. Rodriguez had sued 27-11 49th Avenue Realty, LLC, and Mana after a slip and fall in a factory. The defendants argued that the complaint against Mana was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, claiming Rodriguez was Mana's special employee. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the defendants established a prima facie case for summary judgment based on Rodriguez's deposition testimony, indicating Mana controlled his work details, thus establishing a special employment relationship as a matter of law.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary Judgment GrantPersonal Injury ClaimAppellate Division Second DepartmentControl over WorkEmployer LiabilityPlaintiff's AppealDefendant's MotionSlip and Fall Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 1,129 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