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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01845
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Goya v. Longwood Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

This case from the Appellate Division, First Department, involves appeals related to a Labor Law action stemming from an incident on a fire escape ladder. The court modified several Supreme Court orders, granting summary judgment dismissal for A.A.D. Construction Corp. on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while denying renewal for a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also addressed complex issues of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance among various defendants and third-party defendants, including Longwood Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., Melcara Corp., AIM Construction of NY Inc., Clark & Wilkins Industries, Inc., Cross Contracting, Inc., and Triboro Maintenance Corp. The court affirmed in part, modified in part, and reversed a judgment dismissing a contribution claim, reinstating it.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceElevation-Related RiskFire Escape LadderStatutory AgentAnti-Subrogation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Findlay Industries, Inc.

The Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Findlay Industries Inc. for alleged unpaid contributions related to vacation and holiday pay, seeking back contributions, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. Findlay Industries Inc. maintained that its collective bargaining agreements with four local unions only required contributions for 'hours worked,' not for vacation or holiday pay. The court found that Findlay had consistently contributed based on 'hours worked' since 1973, and the Fund had knowingly accepted this interpretation for many years. Despite previous audits and demands, the Fund's claims for additional contributions were rejected, and the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreements required contributions only for 'hours worked.' Consequently, all claims by the plaintiff Fund were dismissed on the merits.

Pension Fund DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementHours WorkedVacation PayHoliday PayERISALMRAContract InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTrust Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patricia v. Delford Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Carrie Patricia brought an action under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act against her former employer, Delford Industries, Inc., and her bargaining representatives, Local 546 and the International Union. Patricia alleged wrongful termination by Delford and a breach of the duty of fair representation by the unions for their handling of her grievance. The court considered motions for summary judgment from all parties and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint. The motions for summary judgment by Local 546, Delford, and Patricia were denied. The International Union's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Patricia's motion to amend her complaint was also granted.

Labor Management Relations ActDuty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment MotionMotion to Amend ComplaintFederal Civil ProcedureRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelUnemployment Benefits Claim
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 1983

Elmsford Sheet Metal Workers, Inc. v. Shasta Industries, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, in favor of the plaintiff against defendant Shasta Industries, Inc., for breach of contract. The plaintiff's claim arose from the defendant's failure to deliver travel trailers by January 15, 1980, as stipulated in the contract for the Lake Placid Olympics. The defendant argued that the delivery deadline was extended by mutual assent. However, the contract explicitly required written modifications. The trial court found no compliance with the modification clause, nor any basis for waiver or estoppel, a finding affirmed by the appellate court. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $31,366.72 was affirmed, with costs.

Breach of ContractDelivery DeadlineWritten ModificationWaiverEstoppelCommercial LawContractual TermsAppellate ReviewPerformance ObligationUniform Commercial Code
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scarfi v. Bright Star Industries, Inc.

The trustees of the District No. 15 Machinists’ Pension Fund, acting as plaintiffs, initiated this action against Bright Star Industries, Inc. seeking to compel overdue contributions to the fund under ERISA and LMRA. Bright Star moved to dismiss, contending that jurisdiction over the matter was exclusively with the National Labor Relations Board due to previous unfair labor practice proceedings. The court, presided over by District Judge Glasser, denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, asserting its concurrent jurisdiction with the NLRB in cases involving both NLRA violations and breaches of collective bargaining agreements, particularly where a valid contract is still in effect. The court also denied Bright Star's request for costs and attorney's fees.

ERISALMRANLRAPension FundCollective Bargaining AgreementUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionMotion to DismissPreemptionConcurrent Jurisdiction
References
5
Case No. 2003 NY Slip Op 23942
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2003

Duane Reade, Inc. v. Local 338 Retail, Wholesale Dept. Store Union, UFCW, AFL-CIO

This case arises from a labor dispute between Duane Reade, Inc. (plaintiff) and Local 338 of the Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (defendants). Duane Reade sued the union for trespass, tortious interference, fraud, and defamation, seeking $1.4 million in damages. The union moved to dismiss, arguing failure to plead membership authorization for tortious acts and NLRA preemption of state claims. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the dismissal, finding that Duane Reade did not meet pleading requirements under Martin v Curran and that the state law claims were preempted by the NLRA, as the NLRB was already investigating related unfair labor practices. The court also denied Duane Reade's cross-motion to amend its complaint.

Labor LawUnion DisputeNLRA PreemptionTrespassTortious InterferenceFraudDefamationMotion to DismissCollective BargainingUnfair Labor Practices
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 27,412 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