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

United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1998

Robert Half International, Inc. v. Re-Track USA Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied its motion for summary judgment in an action to recover damages for breach of contract and for an account stated. The appellate court modified the order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the cause of action based on an account stated. The court found that the "Conditions of Assignment" on time sheets permitted oral modification of the hourly billing rate. However, the defendant's opposing affidavit lacked sufficient evidentiary details regarding the alleged oral modification, failing to raise a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the plaintiff was entitled to summary judgment on the account stated cause of action, and the matter was remitted for entry of judgment.

Breach of ContractAccount StatedSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewOral ModificationBilling DisputesContract LawCivil ProcedureNew York LawEvidentiary Requirements
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradley v. IBEX Construction, LLC

This case involves a plaintiff worker who fell from a ladder. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially entered a judgment based on a jury verdict in favor of defendants on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. The Appellate Division modified this judgment, granting plaintiffs' motion to set aside the verdict and directing judgment in favor of plaintiffs on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found that the jury's rejection of the accident report meant there was insufficient evidence to conclude the ladder provided proper protection. Additionally, the indemnification claims against second third-party defendant Sage Electrical Contracting, Inc. were reinstated, and the matter was remanded for a trial on damages and apportionment of fault. An earlier decision by this Court from June 26, 2008, was recalled and vacated upon reargument, with a new decision and order substituted.

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder FallWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityNegligenceProximate CauseBusiness RecordsJury VerdictVerdict Set AsideJudgment Notwithstanding Verdict
References
14
Case No. 06-3671
Regular Panel Decision

Sanchez v. Ameriquest Mortgage Co. (In Re Sanchez)

This case involves Chapter 13 debtors Lino and Mary Sanchez (Plaintiffs) and Ameriquest Mortgage Company (Defendant). The central issue is whether a creditor may assess post-petition charges, such as attorney's fees and property inspection fees, without disclosing them to the debtors or seeking court approval, even if allowed by a pre-petition contract. The Court ruled that such charges must be disclosed and approved, and the Defendant's failure to do so rendered them per se unreasonable and a violation of the automatic stay. The Court also found the Defendant's unilateral modification of the Chapter 13 plan and its purchase of tax claims without proper notice to be invalid. The Court grants the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Partial Summary Judgment and denies the Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment.

BankruptcyChapter 13Automatic StayCreditor RightsDebtor RightsFee DisclosureCourt ApprovalLien EnforcementContractual FeesMortgage
References
91
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 1972

People v. Messiah

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, New York County, rendered on January 10, 1972. The defendant was convicted on a plea of guilty to attempted assault in the first degree and sentenced to an indeterminate term of imprisonment not to exceed four years. The judgment was affirmed by the appellate court. A dissenting opinion argued for a modification of the judgment to reduce the sentence to probation, citing the defendant's age, long-term marriage, stable employment history since 1948, lack of prior criminal record (except an unverified lottery charge), and strong community ties, emphasizing rehabilitation over imprisonment. The dissent also highlighted the circumstances of the altercation, where the defendant was struck on the head.

Criminal LawSentencing ReviewAttempted Assault First DegreePlea of GuiltyIndeterminate SentenceProbation RecommendationJudicial DiscretionRehabilitation FactorsAppellant's BackgroundDissenting Opinion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hannah v. American Republic Insurance

Phil Hannah filed an action against American Republic Insurance Company (ARIC), alleging interference with his ERISA rights under 29 U.S.C. § 1140 due to employment termination, and wrongful denial of benefits under 29 U.S.C. § 1132. Hannah’s employment with Americare, an ARIC subsidiary, was terminated in August 2004, after which he signed a Separation Agreement and Release. The Court granted ARIC’s motion for summary judgment on the ERISA § 510 claim, finding the Release valid and rejecting Hannah’s argument of economic duress. For the ERISA § 502 claim, the Court also ruled in favor of ARIC, determining that Hannah failed to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Plan, and found his futility and waiver arguments to be without merit. Consequently, the Court granted ARIC’s motion for entry of judgment on the benefits claim, denied Hannah’s motion for summary judgment, and dismissed the entire case with judgment entered in favor of the Defendant.

ERISASummary JudgmentEmployee Benefits PlanWrongful TerminationAdministrative RemediesEconomic DuressRelease AgreementWaiver of ClaimsFutility DoctrineDeferred Compensation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Jan Transport, Inc.

Plaintiff Francisco Lopez was injured while loading a trailer for defendant Knickerbocker Dispatch, Inc., with defendant Jan Transport, Inc. acting as the dispatcher. Both companies were controlled by the same principals and insured under the same workers’ compensation policy. Lopez initially received workers’ compensation benefits, with the Workers’ Compensation Board finding dual employment by both defendants. Subsequently, Lopez sued both defendants. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants’ motions for summary judgment based on the workers’ compensation awards. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting both defendants’ motions for summary judgment and dismissing the complaint, citing the preclusive effect of the Workers’ Compensation Board’s prior findings of employment.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDual EmploymentRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelEmployer LiabilityPersonal InjuryMotion to Renew
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. Sam Greco Construction Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of Monahan & Loughlin, Inc. (M & L), suffered serious injuries after sliding off a roof at a construction site while attempting to access safety equipment. He initiated an action against the general contractor, Sam Greco Construction, Inc., and other entities, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting that the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. However, on appeal, the court determined that the safety equipment provided was improperly stored and not adequately placed, constituting a statutory violation that proximately caused the plaintiff's fall. Consequently, the appellate court ruled that the plaintiff's actions could not be the sole proximate cause of his injuries, nor did the recalcitrant worker doctrine apply. The judgment was modified, denying the defendants' motion and granting the plaintiff partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leaving only the determination of damages.

Labor Law § 240(1)Construction AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative NegligenceRecalcitrant Worker DoctrineRoofingFall from Height
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 17,340 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