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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06751
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 2015

All State Flooring Distributors, L.P. v. MD Floors, LLC

Plaintiff, All State Flooring Distributors, L.P., initiated legal action against MD Floors, LLC, and Michael Savino to recover $48,188.50 for wood flooring delivered. MD Floors, in turn, filed counterclaims asserting that it incurred additional labor costs due to faulty flooring and was subjected to double-billing. The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, citing both a procedural default and the presence of triable issues of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, while correcting the Supreme Court's finding of a procedural default. The Appellate Division concurred that substantial triable issues of fact existed regarding partial payments, attorney's fees, and the alleged personal guaranty by Savino, and also affirmed the existence of triable issues concerning MD Floors' counterclaims for additional labor costs and double-billing.

Summary JudgmentBreach of ContractPersonal GuarantyCounterclaimsProcedural DefaultAppellate ReviewTriable Issues of FactAttorney's FeesCommercial LawContract Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Communications Workers of America v. New York Telephone Co.

The Union initiated a lawsuit to compel the Company to arbitrate a grievance concerning temporary promotions. Both parties moved for summary judgment, with the core dispute revolving around the arbitrability of promotional issues under their collective bargaining agreement. The Company argued that Section 9.08 of the agreement explicitly excluded such grievances from arbitration. The court, referencing Supreme Court precedents like United Steelworkers of America v. Warrior and Gulf Navigation Co. and Atkinson v. Sinclair Refining Co., found that Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act does not compel arbitration where the collective bargaining agreement clearly indicates an intent to exclude certain disputes. Given the unambiguous exclusionary language in Section 9.08, the court concluded that the parties did not intend for disputes regarding promotions to be subject to arbitration. Consequently, the Company's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Union's action.

Labor DisputeArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentExclusionary ClauseSection 301 LMRASeniorityPromotionsContract InterpretationFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
21
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 786
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1997

ITRI BRICK CORP v. Aetna Cas.

This case clarifies the enforceability of indemnification agreements in construction contracts under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. The Court of Appeals held that such agreements, if they purport to indemnify a general contractor for any portion of damages caused by its own negligence, are entirely void and unenforceable as against public policy, rather than merely partially unenforceable. The decision stemmed from two consolidated appeals, Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Casualty & Surety Company and Stottlar v Ginsburg Development Corp., where general contractors were found partially negligent for worker injuries. The Court affirmed the judgment in Itri and reversed the Appellate Division's decision in Stottlar, reinstating the Supreme Court's original judgment. The Court emphasized the legislative intent to prevent contractors from shifting liability for their own negligence.

Indemnification AgreementConstruction LawSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor NegligenceStatutory InterpretationGeneral Obligations LawInsurance CoverageVoid ContractPublic PolicyNew York Court of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 1995

Wausau Underwriters Insurance v. Continental Casualty Co.

This case addresses a dispute between Wausau Underwriters Insurance Company (Wausau) and Continental Casualty Company (Continental), along with The Hartford Insurance Group. Wausau, as the employer's liability carrier for H. Sand & Company, successfully argued that a third-party action by Slattery-Argrett, subrogor of Continental, against H. Sand & Company, constituted an impermissible subrogation claim by an insurer against its own insured. The underlying matter involved a personal injury sustained by an employee of H. Sand & Company. Continental had initially disclaimed coverage for Sand in the third-party action. The Supreme Court granted Wausau's motion for summary judgment, declaring the subrogation action a violation of public policy and awarding Wausau damages. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, distinguishing the present case from prior rulings like *North Star Reins. Corp. v Continental Ins. Co.*, and emphasizing the distinction between claims for indemnification and contribution within insurance policy exclusions.

Subrogation ClaimInsurance Coverage DisputeIndemnification vs. ContributionPublic Policy in InsuranceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityGeneral Liability InsuranceExcess Liability InsuranceConstruction AccidentWorkers' Compensation Carrier
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Colvin

Plaintiff Nikimia Patterson, acting pro se, sought judicial review of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision to deny her claims for Disability Insurance Benefits and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, a motion to which Patterson did not respond. United States Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein reviewed the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) decision, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. The ALJ found that despite Patterson's severe impairments, including knee injuries and headaches, her depression was non-severe, and she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) to perform sedentary work with limitations on bending or stooping. The court considered additional medical evidence concerning Patterson's right knee injury, submitted to the Appeals Council after the ALJ's decision, but determined it was not probative enough to warrant a remand, as Patterson's own testimony indicated an active lifestyle even with the injury. Consequently, the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted, dismissing the case.

Social Security DisabilitySSIDisability Insurance BenefitsALJ ReviewMedical ImpairmentKnee PainMeniscus TearOsteoarthritisResidual Functional CapacitySedentary Work
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Milton C. Johnson Co.

Milton O. Johnson Company, a corporation, and its president, Walter Gemmill, were charged with violating Labor Law sections 191(1)(a) and 198-c for failing to pay employee wages and vacation benefits. The company abruptly ran out of funds on October 14, 1970, after its factoring company, Armstrong, ceased financial support. Gemmill, who had intimate knowledge of the company's precarious financial state, informed employees there were no funds for their wages or benefits. The court found the corporation strictly liable for the malum prohibitum violations. Regarding Gemmill, despite his defense that he could not have knowingly permitted the violation due to the unforeseeable action by Armstrong, the court determined that his deep involvement and awareness of the company's financial instability meant he "knew or should have known" of the risk of non-payment. Citing precedents like People v. Trapp and People v. Ahrend Co., the court concluded that the risk of such an event rests with the employer and its managers, not the employees. Consequently, both the corporation and Walter Gemmill were found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of violating the specified Labor Law sections.

Criminal LiabilityWage Non-PaymentVacation BenefitsCorporate Officer LiabilityKnowing PermitFinancial DistressMalum ProhibitumLabor Law ViolationEmployer ResponsibilityOfficer Guilt
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Serio v. Ardra Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment in favor of Gregory V. Serio, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York, as Liquidator of Nassau Insurance Company, against the DiLoreto defendants. The trial court's decision to pierce the corporate veil of Ardra Insurance Company, controlled from New York by Richard DiLoreto, was upheld based on New York law, despite Ardra's Bermuda incorporation. The court rejected the defendants' equitable estoppel claim, asserting that governmental agencies can alter positions in governmental functions. Furthermore, the evidence supported the jury's finding that transactions between Ardra and Nassau Insurance Company were unfair and inequitable, as the DiLoretos diverted funds, thereby denying Nassau coverage. The appellate court found the verdict consistent with the evidence and noted the defendants waived their claim regarding the jury's composition by consent.

Corporate Veil PiercingReinsuranceEquitable EstoppelGovernmental FunctionInsurance LawJury VerdictAppellate ReviewUnfair TransactionsCorporate DebtNew York Law
References
12
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04129 [150 AD3d 1131]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2017

Patterson v. Calogero

Rosemarie Patterson initiated an action against Richard Calogero and Timothy Hogue, alleging fraud and other claims stemming from the sale of her stock in Medical Recovery Collection Group, Inc. Patterson contended that Calogero and Hogue orchestrated a scheme to misappropriate revenue, thereby diminishing the corporation's value and fraudulently inducing her to sell her interest for an undervalued price. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that a previously executed general release precluded Patterson's claims against Calogero. Furthermore, the court found the claims against Hogue for aiding and abetting were unsustainable, and her individual fraud and tortious interference claims lacked the necessary legal elements.

FraudBreach of Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConstructive TrustTortious Interference with ContractStock Purchase AgreementSeverance AgreementGeneral ReleaseCorporate SharesDerivative Claim
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 1993

Patterson v. Army

Plaintiffs Patricia M. Patterson and Dr. Hoi Yat Kam, employees of Booth Memorial Medical Center, brought an action against Booth and others after allegedly being exposed to Formalin. Booth moved for summary judgment, arguing the exclusivity of Workers' Compensation Law. The IAS Court initially denied Booth's motion, citing factual disputes regarding coverage and Booth's knowledge of Formalin dangers. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, granting Booth's motion and dismissing the complaint against it. The court found that a Workers' Compensation policy was in place, covering the loss period and paying Patterson's medical bills, thus making Workers' Compensation the exclusive remedy for injuries arising from employment. The plaintiffs' argument of intentional injury by Booth was rejected, as the tort was not deemed intentional under the legal standard requiring a deliberate act to injure a particular employee.

Workers CompensationExclusivity ClauseSummary JudgmentFormalin ExposureOccupational DiseaseIntentional TortAppellate ReversalEmployer LiabilityPathologyNew York Law
References
4
Case No. CA 10-00545
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2011

HAHN AUTOMOTIVE WAREHOUSE, INC. v. AMERICAN ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

Hahn Automotive Warehouse, Inc. (plaintiff) initiated a breach of contract action against American Zurich Insurance Company and Zurich American Insurance Company (defendants), contending that bills issued under insurance contracts were time-barred. Defendants counterclaimed for damages stemming from plaintiff's alleged breach of these contracts. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiff's cross-motion, deeming counterclaims for debts arising over six years prior as time-barred. Concurrently, it permitted defendants to utilize a $400,000 letter of credit to satisfy any outstanding debt, including those deemed time-barred. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the use of the letter of credit for time-barred debts, reasoning that the statute of limitations only bars the remedy, not the underlying obligation. The court also affirmed that defendants' counterclaims for debts over six years old were time-barred, as the right to demand payment accrued earlier. Finally, the court modified the order to dismiss plaintiff's second through fourth causes of action. A dissenting opinion argued that the counterclaims were not time-barred, asserting that the cause of action accrued upon demand and refusal of payment, not merely when the right to demand payment existed.

Breach of contractInsurance contractsStatute of limitationsLetter of creditSummary judgmentAppellate reviewContract interpretationTime-barred claimsAccrual of cause of actionRetrospective premiums
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 25,866 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