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

GURNEY'S INN RESORT & SPA LTD. v. Benjamin

Gurney’s Inn Resort & Spa Ltd. (plaintiff) initiated a declaratory judgment action in state court against its Board members Linda Benjamin, Thomas Carusona, and Christopher Bennett to determine voting rights. Benjamin removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff moved to remand, arguing a lack of complete diversity and non-compliance with the rule of unanimity. The Court applied the 'collision of interests' test, finding that Carusona and Bennett's interests aligned with Gurney's against Benjamin's. Consequently, the Court realigned Carusona and Bennett as plaintiffs, thereby creating complete diversity and excusing the failure to obtain their consent for removal. The Court denied the plaintiff's motion to remand for lack of federal jurisdiction.

Diversity JurisdictionRemand MotionRealignment of PartiesComplete DiversityRule of UnanimityDeclaratory JudgmentBoard of Directors DisputeVoting RightsSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
49
Case No. SRO 0135735
Regular
Nov 06, 2007

ROBERT ANUSEWICZ vs. JOINT INDUSTRY BOARD OF PLUMBING, dba KONOCTI HARBOR INN AND RESORT, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns an applicant's entitlement to temporary disability indemnity beyond the standard 104-week limit. The Appeals Board rescinded the prior award, ruling that the applicant's hip and knee replacement surgeries did not constitute "amputations" as defined by Labor Code section 4656(c)(2)(C). Therefore, the applicant is limited to 104 weeks of temporary disability indemnity from the commencement of payments, precluding indemnity beyond January 31, 2007.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRobert AnusewiczJoint Industry Board of PlumbingKonocti Harbor Inn and ResortState Compensation Insurance FundSRO 0135735Opinion and Decision After Reconsiderationtemporary disability indemnityindustrial injuryleft knee
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indian Harbor Insurance v. Global Transport System, Inc.

Indian Harbor Global Insurance Company filed a complaint against Global Transport System seeking a declaratory judgment that it was not obligated to indemnify Global for the loss of Barge MST 17, and a stay of arbitration proceedings. Global moved to dismiss the complaint and compel arbitration, relying on a binding arbitration clause in their insurance policy. The dispute arose after the Barge MST 17 sank following Global's attempt to amend its policy for navigation coverage, which Indian Harbor claimed was not properly accepted. The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, granted Global's motion, dismissing the complaint and compelling Indian Harbor to proceed to arbitration, finding that the broad arbitration clause covered disputes regarding policy modifications or terminations.

Arbitration AgreementInsurance Coverage DisputeMaritime LawPolicy EndorsementContract InterpretationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFederal Arbitration ActMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefSeaworthiness
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1997

Lehmuller v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor

Laura R. Lehmuller, a female police officer, sued the Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor alleging discrimination based on gender, pregnancy, and disability, and retaliation for filing an EEOC claim, under Title VII, ADA, and Section 1983. The Court previously dismissed her ADA and Section 1983 claims via summary judgment. Lehmuller moved for reconsideration of the Section 1983 claim dismissal, arguing her EEOC complaint was a matter of public concern and her right-to-petition rights were distinct. The Court granted reconsideration, finding material issues of fact regarding whether her speech was a matter of public concern and the Village's motive in directing her back to work. Consequently, the Court vacated the original summary judgment for the Village on the Section 1983 claim, denying both parties' summary judgment motions on that particular cause of action. Her request for certification to the Second Circuit was denied.

DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationFirst Amendment RightsSection 1983 ClaimEEOC ComplaintSummary Judgment MotionMotion for ReconsiderationPublic Employee Rights
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

THOMAS, PIA v. DUNKIRK RESORT PROPERTIES, LLC

Plaintiff commenced an action to recover damages for injuries sustained during employment at a hotel owned by defendant Dunkirk Resort Properties, LLC (Dunkirk Resort) and managed by her employer, nonparty S & K Hospitality, LLC (S & K). The Supreme Court erred in granting Dunkirk Resort's motion for summary judgment. The court rejected the out-of-possession landlord standard as applied by the lower court because no leasehold was created by the agreement between Dunkirk Resort and S & K; rather, it was a management agreement. Additionally, Dunkirk Resort's submissions raised a triable issue of fact regarding its out-of-possession landlord status. Furthermore, Dunkirk Resort failed to establish the applicability of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity provision, as triable issues of fact remain concerning whether Dunkirk Resort is the alter ego of S & K, given their distinct purposes, bank accounts, and tax returns despite shared members.

Summary JudgmentOut-of-Possession LandlordAlter EgoManagement AgreementLease Operating AgreementPremises LiabilityCorporate VeilEmployment InjuryAppellate ReviewTriable Issue of Fact
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2004

Schramm v. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This case concerns an appeal by third-party defendants W.T. Hickey Corp. and Hickey Electric Co., Inc., from an order denying their motion to dismiss claims for common-law indemnification and contribution as premature. The defendant third-party plaintiff, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, also filed a cross-appeal. The court examined Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits employer liability to third parties for contribution or indemnity unless a "grave injury" is proven, and discussed the distinction between general and special employment. The appellate court found the third-party defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a special employment relationship. Consequently, the cross-appeal was dismissed as the defendant was not aggrieved, and the original order was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
12
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04297 [230 AD3d 721]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2024

6 Harbor Park Dr., LLC v. Town of N. Hempstead

The plaintiff, 6 Harbor Park Drive, LLC, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed its complaint against defendant Angeles Portela following a jury verdict. The action stemmed from property damage caused by water and debris flowing onto the plaintiff's property. Earlier stages of the litigation saw several other defendants, including the Town of North Hempstead, granted summary judgment, leaving only a specific claim regarding mulch placement against Portela for trial. The plaintiff alleged Portela's negligent mulch application increased run-off, but the jury found Portela not negligent. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment, concluding that the Supreme Court properly exercised its discretion in evidentiary rulings and that any other errors were harmless.

Property DamageNegligenceJury VerdictAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsSummary JudgmentWater Run-offMulch ApplicationHarmless ErrorJudicial Discretion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2014

Scottsdale Insurance v. Indian Harbor Insurance

Scottsdale Insurance Company, an excess insurer, sued Indian Harbor Insurance Company, a primary insurer, alleging bad faith and gross disregard for failing to settle an underlying personal injury lawsuit involving Linzy Dickson within the primary policy limits. Dickson, a construction worker, sustained severe injuries and underwent spinal fusion surgery, leading to a $2.5 million settlement which required Scottsdale to pay $1.5 million. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied both motions, finding material disputed facts regarding Indian Harbor's alleged gross disregard and whether it caused the loss of an opportunity to settle the case for $1 million or less, thus necessitating a jury trial.

Insurance DisputeBad Faith ClaimExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceSettlement NegotiationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal Injury LawsuitConstruction AccidentSpinal Fusion SurgeryDamages Assessment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indian Harbor Insurance v. Factory Mutual Insurance

The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("Penn") and Indian Harbor Insurance Company ("Indian Harbor") sued Factory Mutual Insurance Company ("FM") seeking a declaratory judgment regarding insurance coverage for damages Penn sustained at its veterinary hospital due to a Salmonella outbreak. FM moved to transfer the venue from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The Court considered factors such as the locus of operative facts being in Pennsylvania, the convenience of key witnesses like FM's adjuster, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's familiarity with the governing law and lighter docket. The Court ultimately granted FM's motion, finding that the balance of factors strongly favored transferring the case.

Venue TransferDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeProperty LossSalmonella OutbreakVeterinary HospitalForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawJudicial EconomyInter-district Transfer
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Gross v. Three Rivers Inn, Inc.

The court reversed an order, with costs, and remitted the matter to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division is directed to remand the case to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings concerning the employer-employee relationship. This decision was based on the reasons stated in Justice Paul J. Yesawich Jr.'s dissenting opinion at the Appellate Division. The Chief Judge and other Judges concurred with this decision.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate Court DecisionDissenting Opinion AdoptedCase RemittedJudicial ReversalCourt of Appeals ReviewProcedural RemandBoard Proceedings
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 294 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