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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00089 [201 AD3d 1078]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Myristica, LLC v. Camp Myristica, Ltd.

This case involves an appeal stemming from a mortgage foreclosure action initiated by Myristica, LLC against Camp Myristica, Ltd. and other defendants, including David Kramer. The core dispute revolves around a stipulation of settlement reached by the parties, which resolved the original foreclosure action and cross-claims asserted by David Kramer. Kramer subsequently moved to vacate this stipulation, alleging mutual mistake and fraud regarding the premium membership status of Ron E. Chugerman and Alyson Chugerman within Camp Myristica, Ltd. The Supreme Court denied Kramer's motion to vacate, finding the stipulation binding and that Kramer failed to demonstrate good cause. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying Kramer's motion to vacate the stipulation, noting that Kramer's arguments regarding mutual mistake and fraud were unpreserved or lacked merit. The Court also dismissed Kramer's appeal from a later order denying his motion to reargue, as no appeal lies from such a denial.

Settlement stipulationVacate stipulationMortgage foreclosureCorporate governancePremium membershipFraud allegationMutual mistakeAppellate reviewUnpreserved argumentOpen court stipulation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kramer v. Bouchard Transportation Co.

This Memorandum and Order addresses a motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. Plaintiff Ronald Kramer, a dock worker, sustained injuries while working on defendant Bouchard Transportation Co.'s barge and received workmen's compensation benefits under Connecticut law. Kramer subsequently filed a negligence action against Bouchard. Bouchard then impleaded Amerada Hess Corporation, Kramer's employer, seeking indemnity based on an alleged breach of an implied warranty. The court examined whether the Longshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 901 et seq.) preempts Connecticut law regarding third-party indemnity claims against an employer. Finding that Section 905(b) of the Longshore Act explicitly bars an employer's liability to a vessel for such damages, the court determined that federal law controls. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the third-party complaint against Amerada Hess Corporation was granted.

Longshore ActWorkmen's CompensationPreemptionConcurrent JurisdictionThird-Party ComplaintIndemnityBarge Owner LiabilityEmployer ImmunityDock Worker InjuryFederal vs State Law
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 1978

Abbott v. Acker

The case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court in Saratoga County that denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the first, fourth, and fifth causes of action in the plaintiff's complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff, a plumber and pipefitter, alleged that he was denied union membership and benefits by Local No. 7 and wrongfully removed from his job with Kramer and Sons, Inc. The core legal question was whether state courts were pre-empted by federal labor laws, specifically the National Labor Relations Act. The court concluded that the first and fifth causes of action, involving employer-union interaction and unfair labor practices, fell under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. However, the fourth cause of action, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation, was deemed within state court jurisdiction. Consequently, the order was modified to grant the dismissal of the first and fifth causes of action, while affirming the denial of dismissal for the fourth.

Labor LawJurisdictionPreemption DoctrineNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeDuty of Fair RepresentationUnion MembershipMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewSubject Matter Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prudential Securities, Inc. v. Wyser-Pratte

Petitioners, Prudential Securities and Prudential Insurance, sought to disqualify the law firm Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel from representing respondent Guy P. Wyser-Pratte in arbitration proceedings. Wyser-Pratte, a former employee of Prudential Securities, had initiated arbitration alleging various claims including breach of contract and tortious interference by Prudential Insurance. Petitioners argued a conflict of interest due to Kramer's prior representation of Prudential entities in related employment and bankruptcy matters, claiming access to confidential information. The initial court granted the disqualification, finding a substantial relationship between the matters. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that petitioners failed to demonstrate a substantial relationship between the arbitration claims and Kramer's prior representations, and noted the delay in seeking disqualification.

Disqualification of CounselConflict of InterestAttorney-Client RelationshipSubstantial Relationship TestConfidential InformationArbitration ProceedingsWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractEmployment LawAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 91 B 10891
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Financial News Network Inc.

This memorandum decision addresses motions by Gibson, Dunn & Crutcher and Kramer, Levin, Nessen, Kamin & Frankel, counsel for the debtor (Financial News Network, FNN) and the equipment lessors committee respectively, seeking payment of prepetition fees in FNN's Chapter 11 bankruptcy case. Gibson, Dunn sought payment through the assumption of an employment agreement at a premium rate, while Kramer, Levin sought compensation under Section 503(b) for substantial contribution. The court denied Gibson, Dunn's motion, ruling that professional compensation is governed by Sections 327-330 of the Bankruptcy Code, not Section 365, and rejected the "doctrine of necessity" in this context. Kramer, Levin's motion for prepetition fees was also denied, without prejudice, as the court deemed the determination of "substantial contribution" premature and best addressed at the conclusion of the case.

Chapter 11Bankruptcy LawPrepetition FeesCounsel FeesExecutory ContractProfessional CompensationDoctrine of NecessitySubstantial ContributionDebtor-in-possessionBankruptcy Code Section 365
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kramer v. NAB Construction Corp.

In an action for personal injuries, the plaintiff, an employee of Simpson Metal Industries, Inc., received Workers' Compensation benefits after an accident while working on a construction project for NAB Construction Corp. The plaintiff subsequently sued NAB, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court denied NAB's motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff was not a special employee. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff was, as a matter of law, a special employee of NAB due to factors like NAB's control over work, shared firing authority, and reimbursement for wages. Furthermore, given the close relationship and shared Workers' Compensation coverage between Simpson and NAB, immunity was extended to NAB. Consequently, the appellate court granted the motions to dismiss the complaint against NAB and the third-party complaint against Simpson.

Special EmployeeGeneral EmployerIndemnificationPersonal InjuryNegligenceCPLR 4404Jury Verdict Set AsideThird-Party LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAppellate Reversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Water Authority v. Kramer

The Erie County Water Authority initiated an Article 78 proceeding to prevent the New York State Labor Relations Board from asserting jurisdiction over an unfair labor practice complaint. The Authority, a state agency, argued its exemption from the New York State Labor Relations Act, despite a provision in the Public Authorities Law stating it is an 'employer.' The court reviewed relevant labor and civil service laws, as well as prior case law concerning state agencies and collective bargaining. Ultimately, the court determined that the Authority, as an agency of the state, falls under the exemptions of Labor Law Section 715, thus not subject to the collective bargaining requirements of Article 20 of the Labor Law. Therefore, the application to enjoin the Board's actions was granted due to lack of jurisdiction.

Article 78Civil Practice ActPublic Authorities LawLabor LawState AgencyUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingJurisdiction DisputeErie County Water AuthorityNew York State Labor Relations Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kramer v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order issued by the Supreme Court, Erie County, presided over by Justice Kevin M. Dillon. The original order denied the plaintiff's motion for discovery within the context of a wrongful death action. Upon review by the appellate panel, consisting of Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Pine, and Hayes, JJ., the order was unanimously affirmed without costs. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision for the reasons previously stated in the Supreme Court's original determination.

Discovery MotionWrongful Death ActionAppellate CourtOrder AffirmedCivil ProcedureErie County Supreme CourtJudicial Review
References
0
Case No. ADJ8993848 ADJ9916052
Regular
Oct 25, 2016

GINI KRAMER GOLDMAN vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIOS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the Findings and Award in both case numbers ADJ8993848 and ADJ9916052, returning the matters for further proceedings. The WCAB found that the treating physician's reports were not substantial medical evidence, particularly regarding the cumulative trauma injury to the applicant's neck and back, due to a lack of review of past medical records and delayed reporting of symptoms. Additionally, the WCAB noted an issue with the duration of temporary disability benefits awarded in ADJ8993848, which exceeded statutory limits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardTemporary DisabilityPermanent DisabilityCumulative TraumaSpecific InjurySubstantial Medical EvidenceTreating DoctorQualified Medical Evaluator
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Kramer v. Ultra Blend Corp.

Decedent, a co-owner and employee of a vitamin blending company, suffered a fatal heart attack at work. His widow filed a claim for workers’ compensation death benefits, attributing the death to work-related stress. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed, finding the heart attack was due to non-work-related risk factors. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, noting that it is within the Board's discretion to resolve conflicts in expert medical testimony and that their decision was supported by substantial evidence.

workers' compensationdeath benefitsheart attackwork-related stresscausalitymedical expert testimonyWorkers' Compensation Boardsubstantial evidenceappellate reviewcoronary thrombosis
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 20 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