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
Aug 10, 1993

Gramigna v. Morse Diesel, Inc.

A bricklayer, referred to as 'Plaintiff,' was injured on a scaffold at a work site owned by defendant Keio Gijuku, where defendant Joint Venture was the general contractor. A plank on the scaffold broke, causing the plaintiff to become lodged against a wall. The IAS court granted summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §240(1). On appeal, Joint Venture argued there was no statutory violation because the plaintiff did not fall to the ground. The appellate court rejected this argument, holding that the incident involved an elevation-related risk. However, due to the plaintiff's pre-existing hip condition, the court modified the original order to grant Joint Venture's request for further discovery, while otherwise affirming the summary judgment on liability.

scaffolding accidentLabor Law § 240(1)elevation risksummary judgmentliabilitypre-existing conditionfurther discoveryconstruction accidenthip injuryappellate review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Leveski v. Dic Underhill Joint Venture

The claimant, employed by Die Underhill Joint Venture as a drill runner, developed pneumoconiosis (silicosis) due to his occupation and also suffered from coronary artery disease. He stopped working in December 1975 and applied for workers' compensation benefits for silicosis. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found him totally disabled by his non-work-related coronary condition, rescinding a referee's award, a decision the claimant did not appeal. In August 1979, the claimant sought to reopen his case, but the Board denied this application in February 1980. The appellate court affirmed the Board's denial, ruling that the claimant failed to demonstrate a change of condition or present newly discovered evidence as required for reopening a case.

Workers' CompensationSilicosisOccupational DiseaseCoronary Artery DiseaseMedical TreatmentReopening CaseAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionChange of ConditionNewly Discovered Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2006

Ugijanin v. 2 West 45th Street Joint Venture

The plaintiff, a porter employed by 2 West 45th Street Joint Venture, suffered personal injuries and received workers' compensation benefits from his general employer. The plaintiff subsequently sued Joseph P Day Realty Corp. (JPD), the building's managing agent, alleging negligent maintenance. JPD moved for summary judgment, arguing it was shielded from liability as the plaintiff's special employer under workers' compensation law. The Supreme Court initially denied JPD's motion. On appeal, the higher court reversed, finding sufficient evidence that JPD exclusively controlled the plaintiff's work, including assignments, supervision, and termination authority, establishing a prima facie special employment relationship.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewManaging Agent LiabilityEmployer LiabilityNegligent MaintenanceControl and SupervisionPrima Facie Case
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Primetime 24 Joint Venture v. National Broadcasting Co.

PrimeTime 24 Joint Venture (PT24), a satellite operator, sued major television networks and trade organizations, alleging violations of federal and state antitrust and common law. PT24 claimed the defendants conspired to restrict network programming availability to satellite subscribers by abusing the Satellite Home Viewer Act (SHVA) challenge system and engaging in a group boycott. Defendants moved to dismiss, asserting their conduct was protected under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The Court found that both the SHVA challenges and the refusal to negotiate constituted protected petitioning activity, which did not fall under the sham exception. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the antitrust claims and the remaining state law claims for lack of jurisdiction.

Antitrust LawSherman ActNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSatellite TelevisionCopyright InfringementSham LitigationGroup BoycottDirect-to-Home SatelliteNetwork ProgrammingSatellite Home Viewer Act
References
27
Case No. ADJ4094302 (AHM 0101287)
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

ROBERT STAMPS vs. KENNY-SHEA-TRAYLOR-FRONTIER-KEMPER JOINT VENTURE; AIG SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a supplemental attorney's fee award for the applicant's attorney, John M. Urban, under Labor Code §5801. The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis and remanding for attorney's fees. Applicant's attorney requested $5400.00 for 18 hours of work at $300 per hour, which the Board found reasonable. The Board awarded the requested amount to John M. Urban against the defendant joint venture.

ADJ4094302SUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEY'S FEESLABOR CODE §5801Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate Districtpetition for writ of reviewno reasonable basisremandattorney's feesapplicant's attorneyJohn M. Urban
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeFoe Corp. v. New York City Department of Transportation

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated by DeFoe Corporation and American Bridge Company, a joint venture, against the New York City Comptroller and Mayor. The core issue was to challenge the denial of a contract registration for repairs to the Madison Avenue Bridge. Petitioners questioned the timeliness of the Comptroller's objection and whether the denial of registration was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, and finally the Court of Appeals, affirmed the decisions of the Comptroller and Mayor. The courts found that the Comptroller's objection was timely and rationally based on the contractor's past corrupt activities, including tax evasion by principals, failure to disclose violations, and admitted illegal extortion payments.

Contract RegistrationMunicipal Agency ContractCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousTimeliness of ObjectionContractor ResponsibilityBusiness IntegrityTax EvasionDisclosure ViolationsExtortion Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tornabene v. City of New York

Guiseppe Tornabene, a utility worker, sustained injuries after falling into an open trench at a construction site in Manhattan in 2005. He filed a lawsuit against the City of New York, New York City Transit Authority, Schiavone Construction Co., Inc./Granite Halmar Construction Company, Inc. (joint venture), and Roadway Contracting, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1), while defendants sought summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The court denied plaintiff's Labor Law § 240(1) motion and granted the joint venture defendants' motion to dismiss that claim, finding plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his fall by choosing a shortcut. Roadway Contracting was dismissed from the action entirely due to lack of involvement. However, plaintiff's Labor Law § 241(6) claim (based on specific Industrial Codes) and Labor Law § 200/common-law negligence claim against the joint venture, along with cross-claims among the joint venture defendants, survived dismissal.

Utility Worker InjuryConstruction Site AccidentOpen Trench FallLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentNegligence ClaimProximate CauseDangerous Condition
References
31
Case No. 03-cv-4134
Regular Panel Decision

Infantolino v. Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry

Anthony Infantolino sued the Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry (JIB) and Thomas Bush, alleging unlawful retaliation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State/City laws. JIB moved for summary judgment, arguing procedural defects and substantive failures, including that it was not Infantolino's employer. The court found JIB to be a 'joint labor-management committee' and thus a 'covered entity' under the ADA, refuting the employer argument. The court denied summary judgment regarding the retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of fact as to whether JIB's stated reasons for its actions were pretexts for impermissible retaliation. However, the motion for summary judgment was granted in part, denying punitive and compensatory damages for the ADA retaliation claim and punitive damages for the New York State Human Rights Law claim, but allowing punitive damages for the New York City Human Rights Law claim.

ADA RetaliationDisability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentBurden-Shifting FrameworkCausal ConnectionPretextPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights Law
References
36
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
Showing 1-10 of 665 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