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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04220
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2024

Spina v. Browning Hotel Props., LLC

The plaintiff, Kaitlyn Spina, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss her complaint and denied her cross-motion for leave to amend. Spina sought damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision after allegedly being sexually assaulted by a hotel employee at a property owned and operated by the defendants, Browning Hotel Properties, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying Spina's cross-motion to amend, as the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, as the proposed amended complaint sufficiently pleaded causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The order was reversed, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was granted.

negligent hiringnegligent retentionnegligent supervisionsexual assaulthotel liabilityleave to amend complaintmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3025 (b)Appellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hotel Greystone Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council

This case involves a petition by Hotel Greystone to stay an arbitration initiated by the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO (the "Union"). The dispute arose from an arbitrator's decision to reconsider a previous award, which the Hotel opposed based on timeliness and the doctrine of functus officio. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kaplan, denied the Hotel's motion for a permanent stay of arbitration. The court found that the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was timely under the National Labor Relations Act and that the doctrine of functus officio did not apply due to the parties' agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that New York's CPLR time constraints for modification of awards did not bar reconsideration given the contractual provisions. Consequently, the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRANLRAFunctus OfficioReconsideration of AwardStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationLabor LawContract Interpretation
References
15
Case No. 14-08-00493-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 2009

BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr LP, Houston Parkwest Place Ltd, as the Property Owners and the Property Owners v. Harris County Appraisal District and the Appraisal Review Board of Harris County Appraisal District

This appeal concerns a lawsuit where a former property owner initiated judicial review of an ad valorem tax valuation protest by the county appraisal district. A subsequent property purchaser was later included as a plaintiff. The appraisal district challenged the plaintiffs' standing through a plea to the jurisdiction, leading the trial court to dismiss the suit. The appellate court affirmed this dismissal, concluding that neither the initial property owner (BACM 2002 PB2 Westpark Dr. LP) nor the subsequent owner (Houston Parkwest Place Ltd.) possessed the requisite standing to pursue judicial review. Consequently, the trial court was found to lack subject-matter jurisdiction over the dispute.

Property TaxAd Valorem TaxJudicial ReviewStanding DoctrineSubject-Matter JurisdictionPlea to the JurisdictionTexas Tax CodeTexas Rule of Civil Procedure 28Appellate ProcedureProperty Ownership
References
30
Case No. 09-02-018 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2003

U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating, L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. v. Motel Enterprises, Inc.

Motel Enterprises, Inc. sued U.S. Restaurant Properties Operating L.P. and U.S. Restaurant Properties, Inc. for breach of a put option in a purchase and sale agreement. Motel exercised its right to have USRP purchase a $500,000 promissory note, but USRP refused, claiming the note's maker, Bar S Restaurants, Inc., was in material default on a lease. A jury found no material default and awarded Motel $550,000. On appeal, USRP challenged the sufficiency of evidence, damages, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and prejudgment interest. The appellate court affirmed the liability and damages findings, but reversed and remanded for recalculation of prejudgment interest, also modifying the judgment to require Motel to transfer the note to USRP.

Breach of ContractPut OptionPromissory NoteLease AgreementMaterial DefaultSufficiency of EvidenceDamages CalculationJury InstructionsEvidentiary RulingsPrejudgment Interest
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00314-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2015

California Insurance Guarantee Association, Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association, and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association v. Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc.

The appellants, California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), Oklahoma Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (OPCIGA), and Texas Property and Casualty Insurance Guaranty Association (TPCIGA), collectively "Guaranty Associations," are appealing a summary judgment granted in favor of the appellee, Hill Brothers Transportation, Inc. ("Hill Bros."). The suit was filed on March 31, 2009, alleging Hill Bros. failed to reimburse the Guaranty Associations for payments of workers' compensation benefits and claim handling expenses within the deductible limits of a policy issued by the insolvent Legion Insurance Company ("Legion"). The District Court granted summary judgment to Hill Bros. based on the statute of limitations, ruling that the cause of action accrued on April 1, 2002. The Guaranty Associations argue that the accrual date is incorrect, as their statutory obligations had not been triggered, payments had not been made, and demand for reimbursement had not occurred by that date. They also contend that their compliance with Pennsylvania law (the "Pennsylvania Act") in seeking reimbursement through Legion in Liquidation constitutes a mitigating circumstance for any delay, making reasonableness a fact question. Furthermore, they assert the policy was a continuing contract, and the statute of limitations should not have accrued until full performance on April 28, 2009. Alternatively, they argue that claims for deductible payments made within four years of filing suit (March 31, 2005) are not barred.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Guaranty AssociationStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeductible ReimbursementInsolvencyInsurance PolicyContinuing ContractPennsylvania ActTravis County
References
21
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pitta v. Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp.

Vito J. Pitta, as president of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, sought to vacate or remand an arbitrator's award in a dispute with ten New York City hotels. The dispute arose when hotels docked wages of room attendants who willfully "dropped" rooms as part of a partial work stoppage. The Impartial Chairman upheld the hotels' action. Pitta challenged the award, arguing it exceeded the arbitrator's authority and violated New York Labor Law section 193. The court denied Pitta's motion for summary judgment and granted the hotels' cross-motion, affirming the arbitration award. It found the arbitrator acted within his authority and that federal labor law preempts the state law regarding employer-employee economic self-help in collective bargaining.

Arbitration AwardSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeWage DockingWork StoppageCollective BargainingFederal PreemptionNew York Labor LawLabor-Management Relations ActJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 1986

Pitta v. Hotel Ass'n of New York City, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vito J. Pitta, President of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and defendant Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., both moved for summary judgment concerning a June 25, 1986 arbitration award issued by defendant Millard Cass, the Impartial Chairman. The Council sought to vacate the award and compel the selection of a new chairman, while the Association aimed to confirm and enforce it. The court found that the Council had the right to unilaterally terminate Cass's term, effective sixty days after notice was given on June 2, 1986. Consequently, the court vacated the arbitration award, ruling that Cass's conclusions were contrary to the court's earlier findings of fact. The Association was directed to participate in selecting a successor chairman, with the order becoming effective on August 29, 1986, to allow for appeal.

ArbitrationLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActImpartial ChairmanCollective Bargaining AgreementContract InterpretationEmployment at WillRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
16
Case No. 03-07-00240-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2008

Myrad Properties, Inc. v. Lasalle Bank National Ass'n

Myrad Properties, Inc. appealed a summary judgment concerning the non-judicial foreclosure of two apartment complexes, La Casa and Casa Grande, secured by a single note. The central dispute involved an error in the foreclosure notice that only described one property. The court determined that despite the inconsistency, references to the Deed of Trust provided sufficient notice for both properties. The lower court's judgment, affirming the conveyance of both properties and the validity of the correction deed, was largely upheld. However, the appellate court reversed and remanded the claim for a surplus due to Myrad, citing unresolved fact issues regarding the calculation of Myrad's outstanding debt.

ForeclosureNon-judicial foreclosureDeed of TrustProperty description errorSummary judgmentReal propertyApartment complexesSubstitute trusteeNotice of saleCorrection deed
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 2,653 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