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. 2019 NY Slip Op 04460 [173 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Madison Sullivan Partners LLC v. PMG Sullivan St., LLC

Plaintiff Madison Sullivan Partners LLC appealed an order that dismissed its complaint against PMG Sullivan Street, LLC and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged damages from a joint property development due to delays, cost overruns, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, and gross negligence by PMG Sullivan. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to demonstrate demand futility under Delaware law, lacking particularized facts to show a 'substantial likelihood' of personal liability for the defendants. Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting were dismissed. Furthermore, the claim for an accounting was deemed abandoned, and the breach of construction management agreement claim was barred by a waiver of consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, including the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, finding the contractual provision plainly supported such an award to the prevailing party.

Business disputeDemand futilityDelaware lawFiduciary dutyAttorneys' feesConsequential damagesWaiverContract enforcementDerivative actionAppellate review
References
7
Case No. ADJ6616986; ADJ6603689; AD6616952
Regular
Aug 20, 2018

TERRY LEMBCKE vs. IVANHOE RANCH PARTNERS, LLC, HENRY GAMBOA

This case concerns Terry Lembcke's workers' compensation claims against Ivanhoe Ranch Partners, LLC and Henry Gamboa. The applicant alleged he was a statutory employee under Labor Code §2750.5 due to the nature of his work, which he claimed required contractor licenses that the defendants' entity lacked. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of the WCJ's decision, adopting the WCJ's reasoning. The Board found that the defendants failed to rebut the presumption of employment under Labor Code §2750.5.

Statutory employeeLabor Code 2750.5Petition for ReconsiderationUninsured Employers Benefit Trust FundIvanhoe Ranch Partners LLCHenry Gamboawillful misconductindependent contractor statuscontractor's licenserebuttable presumption
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NewMarkets Partners LLC v. Oppenheim

This Memorandum & Order addresses motions to dismiss in a case concerning false advertising under the Lanham Act and various state law claims. Plaintiffs, NewMarkets Partners LLC, CAM NewMarkets Partners LP, and Marie-Frances Mathes, allege that Defendants Sal. Oppenheim Jr. & CIE. S.C.A., CAM Private Equity Consulting & Verwaltungs GmbH, and BVT Beratungs-, Verwaltungsund Treuhandgesellsehaft für Internationale Vermorgensanlagen MBH, misused their proprietary investment model and names to market competing German funds. The court granted BVT-B's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unfair competition claim against Oppenheim. However, motions to dismiss the false advertising claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unjust enrichment claim against CAM were denied. The tortious interference claim against CAM was denied as moot due to an amended complaint.

Lanham ActFalse AdvertisingPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionUnfair CompetitionCivil ConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentJoint Venture AgreementPrivate Equity FundsExtraterritorial Jurisdiction
References
75
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01560 [159 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Gomes v. Pearson Capital Partners LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Atley Gomes partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a December 24, 2012 accident. The court found that the scaffold lacked required safety features (railings, toe boards, cross-bracing, and tie-off points), establishing a statutory violation and proximate cause for plaintiff's fall. The court also affirmed the denial of defendants Pearson Capital Partners LLC and Congress Builders LLC's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, specifically with respect to Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.1 (j), citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the scaffold's height. Additionally, the court declined to consider the defendants' hearsay exception arguments as they were raised for the first time on appeal.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHearsay ExceptionIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryWorker Safety
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01317 [169 AD3d 555]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Lobo v. Gatehouse Partners, LLC

Plaintiff Jose Lobo, a Connecticut resident, sought damages under the Labor Law for injuries from a scaffold fall at a renovation site in Westchester County. The action involved defendant Gatehouse Partners, LLC (general contractor) and third-party defendants, including Anatoliy Kovalskyy (subcontractor), all Connecticut residents. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, dismissed the action against Kovalskyy based on forum non conveniens. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that Kovalskyy failed to prove New York was an inconvenient forum. The court emphasized that New York's Labor Law protects workers in the state, the judicial burden was minimal, and Kovalskyy had not demonstrated hardship, having agreed to work in New York. The Appellate Division also confirmed Bronx County as a proper venue, given no party resided in New York when the action commenced, and no grounds for a discretionary change of venue were shown.

Forum Non ConveniensPersonal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law ClaimConstruction Site SafetyVenue ChangeAppellate ReviewThird-Party ActionJurisdictionInterstate Parties
References
6
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05725 [221 AD3d 805]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2023

MJ Lilly Assoc., LLC v. Ovis Creative, LLC

The plaintiff, MJ Lilly Associates, LLC, initiated legal action against Ovis Creative, LLC, alleging violations of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA). The claims stemmed from the defendant's alleged failure to provide written contracts and to timely pay for freelance work performed by the plaintiff. Ovis Creative, LLC subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the FIFA causes of action, asserting that MJ Lilly Associates, LLC did not qualify as a 'freelance worker' under the Act. The Supreme Court denied this dismissal motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant's submitted evidence did not meet the criteria for 'documentary evidence' required for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and that the plaintiff had adequately stated a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a)(7).

Freelance Isn't Free ActFIFAIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceContract DisputePayment DisputeNew York City Administrative Code
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MLF3 Airitan LLC v. 2338 Second Avenue Mazal LLC

This case involves MLF3 Airitan LLC and MLF3 DC LLC (plaintiffs) suing 2338 Second Avenue Mazal LLC, 167th Street Mazal LLC, Eran Polack, Amir Hasid, Nir Amsel, Bank Leumi USA, and John Doe numbers 1 through 10 (defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty, trust fund diversion, and a declaratory judgment regarding mechanic's liens. Plaintiffs sought an accounting, damages, and priority for their mechanic's liens over Bank Leumi's liens, citing improper notice of lending and unfiled material modifications to loan agreements under the Lien Law. Defendants Bank Leumi and the Mazal entities cross-moved to dismiss based on various procedural grounds and failure to state a cause of action. The court granted Bank Leumi's motions to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action concerning the priority claims. However, it denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action, allowing the action to proceed concurrently with a lien foreclosure action. Additionally, the court granted plaintiffs' cross-motions for an interim accounting and for consolidation of the actions.

Mechanic's LiensDeclaratory JudgmentTrust Fund DiversionBreach of Fiduciary DutyBuilding Loan AgreementLien Law Article 3-AMotion to DismissInterim AccountingConsolidation of ActionsPriority Disputes
References
35
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2024

Powerflex Solar, LLC v. Solar PV Pros, LLC

Plaintiff Powerflex Solar, LLC appealed two orders from Supreme Court in Albany County. The first order partially granted motions by defendants Solar PV Pros, LLC (SPVP) and EoS Organization, LLC to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction regarding agreements for solar modules to be delivered to Rhode Island and California, and for failure to state claims for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and conversion against EoS. The second order adhered to the prior decision upon reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no articulable nexus between the New York agreements and the Rhode Island and California agreements for personal jurisdiction. The court also agreed that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the Meitus-EoS agreements and failed to state a claim for conversion due to lack of identifiable funds.

Personal JurisdictionContract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryConversionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJurisdictional NexusDelaware LLCCalifornia LawSolar Modules
References
33
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03533 [239 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2025

MevRam Servs., LLC v. Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a 'no-poaching' provision within staffing agreements between MevRam Services, LLC and Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC, along with its affiliates. MevRam Services, LLC furnished employees to the Arlo hotels, and the agreement prohibited defendants from hiring these employees for a period. Defendants moved to dismiss MevRam's claims, arguing the provision violated the New York City Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (DBSWPA) and constituted unenforceable penalties. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the no-poaching provision did not violate the DBSWPA as employees were not displaced, and defendants failed to demonstrate any overriding public policy concerns or that the fees were penalties.

No-Poaching ClauseStaffing AgreementBreach of ContractLiquidated DamagesMotion to DismissDisplaced Building Service Workers Protection ActAppellate DivisionContract LawEmployment LawHotel Industry
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,146 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