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. 8 N.Y.3d 892
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

In the Matter of Cagle v. Judge Motor Corporation

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The initial motion for leave to appeal was previously denied, as referenced in 7 NY3d 922. Kim M. Cagle, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, is the appellant. Judge Motor Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board are the respondents. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on February 5, 2007, and rendered its decision on March 22, 2007.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealWorkers' CompensationEstateVoluntary Administrator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mauro v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.

The case addresses whether a secured party, General Motors Acceptance Corporation (GMAC), is liable for an assault committed by an independent contractor's employees, Anthony and Edward Russo from Tri-City Auto Recovery, during a vehicle repossession. Plaintiffs Maureen and John Mauro allege assault and battery, contending the repossession breached the peace. GMAC argued it was not liable due to Tri-City being an independent contractor. The court, citing UCC 9-503 and various precedents, ruled that the duty to repossess without a breach of the peace is nondelegable. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment by GMAC and Tri-City Auto Recovery, seeking dismissal of the complaint, were denied, establishing GMAC's potential liability for the actions of its independent contractor's employees.

RepossessionBreach of PeaceIndependent Contractor LiabilityUCC 9-503Nondelegable DutyAssault and BatterySummary JudgmentSecured TransactionsDebtor's RightsVicarious Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 1995

Leonard v. Unisys Corp.

Linda M. Leonard suffered severe back injuries in 1987 due to a defective office chair, leading to a lawsuit against her employer (Department of Motor Vehicles) and the chair's sellers/manufacturers (Human Factor Technologies, Inc., Burroughs Corporation, Standard Register Company, and Unisys Corporation). The lawsuit alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty. A jury found certain defendants strictly liable and apportioned fault, awarding significant damages for pain and suffering and loss of consortium to Leonard and her husband. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order and judgment, upholding the jury's verdict, the damage awards, and the denial of indemnification claims between defendants, while rejecting challenges to jury instructions and evidentiary rulings.

Products liabilityBreach of warrantyNegligenceIndemnification claimLoss of consortium damagesPain and suffering awardJury verdict reviewApportionment of liabilitySuccessor corporation liabilityDefective chair
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White Motor Corp. v. International Union, United Automobile, Workers, Local Union No. 932

This case concerns a dispute over a pension plan between White Motor Corporation and White Farm Equipment Company (White) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW). Following an arbitration award favoring the UAW, White filed a petition in a New York court to vacate the award, while the UAW simultaneously initiated a suit in a Minnesota District Court to enforce it. The New York court, presided over by Judge Metzner, denied White's motion to stay the Minnesota proceedings. Conversely, it granted the UAW's cross-motion to stay the New York action, emphasizing that the UAW's Minnesota action was the proper forum and that White's claim constituted a compulsory counterclaim in the Minnesota suit, driven by interests of comity and orderly judicial administration.

Labor DisputeArbitration Award EnforcementCollective BargainingPension Plan DisputeLMRAFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictionVenue TransferStay of ProceedingsCompulsory Counterclaim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Motors Corporation—Delco Products Division v. Rosa

Clifford C. Briggs, an African-American, filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging racial discrimination after being terminated by General Motors Corporation. The Division found probable cause and, after hearings, an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) recommended reinstatement with back pay and damages. The Division's Adjudication Counsel proposed dismissing the complaint, but Commissioner Margarita Rosa, who had previously appeared as General Counsel for the Division in the hearings, adopted the ALJ's findings. General Motors challenged this order, arguing a denial of due process due to Commissioner Rosa's dual role and the ALJ exceeding authority. The Appellate Division confirmed the order, applying the Rule of Necessity. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Rule of Necessity was not strictly applicable as the Commissioner could have delegated the review to a subordinate. The case is remitted for review by an impartial arbiter.

Due ProcessAdministrative LawRule of NecessityJudicial IndependenceBiasCommissioner DisqualificationGeneral CounselRacial DiscriminationEmployment TerminationDelegation of Authority
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04322 [240 AD3d 1230]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2025

Skrzynski v. Akebono Brake Corp.

Joseph A. Skrzynski sued Akebono Brake Corporation and Ford Motor Company for personal injuries, specifically mesothelioma, resulting from asbestos exposure from friction products while working at an automobile dealership. The jury found Ford Motor Company liable for failing to warn about the asbestos hazards. On appeal, Ford challenged the legal sufficiency of the evidence for both general and specific causation. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the trial evidence was legally sufficient to establish both that chrysotile asbestos from automotive brakes can cause peritoneal mesothelioma (general causation) and that plaintiff's exposure levels were sufficient to cause his illness (specific causation). A dissenting justice argued that plaintiff's experts offered insufficient evidence for both general and specific causation, particularly regarding the specific type of asbestos and the quantification of plaintiff's exposure.

Products LiabilityAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaFailure to WarnCausationGeneral CausationSpecific CausationAppellate ReviewJury VerdictExpert Testimony
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tikhonova v. Ford Motor Co.

Plaintiff Svetlana Tikhonova suffered catastrophic injuries in a car accident involving a vehicle driven by Alexey Konovalov, a Russian diplomat immune from direct suit. Tikhonova subsequently filed a claim against Ford Motor Credit Company, the registered owner, and Ford Motor Company, the long-term lessee of the vehicle, under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 (1) for vicarious liability. The defendants argued that the driver's diplomatic immunity should shield them from liability, citing precedents from workers' compensation and volunteer firefighter cases. However, the court rejected this argument, asserting that there is no public policy rationale or statutory scheme that warrants extending diplomatic immunity to unrelated third parties. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's decision, denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and reinstated the plaintiff's complaint.

Vicarious LiabilityDiplomatic ImmunityVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Car Owner LiabilityMotor Vehicle AccidentStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewPublic PolicyWorkers' Compensation PrecedentFederal Drivers Act
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seventh Judicial District Asbestos Litigation v. Anchor Packing Co.

The provided text outlines a legal decision in the case of Constance F. Polito against several defendants, including Burns International Services Corporation, Daimler-Chrysler Corporation, Ford Motor Company, and General Motors Corporation. The plaintiff's husband died from mesothelioma, allegedly due to asbestos exposure from the defendants' brake products. The court ruled on three motions in limine. The first two motions, seeking to exclude evidence related to workers' compensation claims, plant conditions, and documents from industrial health associations, were denied. The court found this evidence relevant to the defendants' knowledge of asbestos risks. The third motion, aimed at excluding deposition testimony and an affidavit from expert witness Ralph A. Froehlich, was granted, as the court deemed them inadmissible hearsay and rejected the argument of adoptive admissions.

AsbestosMesotheliomaMotions in LimineWorkers Compensation ClaimsPlant ConditionsHearsayExpert WitnessAdoptive AdmissionsState-of-the-Art EvidenceBrake Products
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01902 [170 AD3d 1506]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2019

Patricola v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff, Steven M. Patricola, commenced a premises liability action against defendants General Motors Corporation and GM Powertrain, seeking damages for injuries allegedly sustained when he slipped on a walkway on their property. Defendants moved for summary judgment, asserting the storm in progress doctrine. The Supreme Court denied their motion, and the defendants appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's order. The court concluded that defendants' own submissions raised a triable issue of material fact as to whether the storm had sufficiently abated prior to the accident, precluding the application of the storm in progress doctrine. Additionally, issues of fact existed regarding whether defendants created or had actual or constructive notice of the slippery condition.

premises liabilityslip and fallsummary judgmentstorm in progress doctrinesnow removallandowner liabilityfactual disputeappellate reviewnegligencehazardous condition
References
7
Case No. 88 Civ. 1534
Regular Panel Decision

Barbagallo v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas L. Barbagallo filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors Corporation (GM) in New York, alleging age discrimination related to its Special Separation Program. The program offered varied separation incentives based on employee age and length of service, notably restricting severance pay to employees under age 53. GM sought summary judgment, asserting that its program, including severance pay provisions, falls under the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), thus preempting New York's age discrimination laws. The Court analyzed whether the severance pay provisions, both in isolation and as an integrated part of the overall program, constituted an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA, differentiating it from one-time severance payments. Concluding that GM's Special Separation Program, with its severance pay components, is governed by ERISA, the Court found Barbagallo's state law age discrimination claim preempted and granted GM's motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentERISA PreemptionAge DiscriminationSeverance PayEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanSpecial Separation ProgramFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment LawState Law ClaimsStatute of Limitations
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,965 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