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 24, 1990

Public Administrator v. Trump Village Construction Corp.

The plaintiff's decedent, an employee of subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp., suffered fatal injuries after falling from scaffolding during a renovation project. The court affirmed an order that granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff Public Administrator regarding the liability of general contractor Charles Construction Corp. under Labor Law § 240 (1). It also affirmed partial summary judgment for property owner Trump Village Construction Corp. and lessee Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. against Charles Construction Corp. for common-law indemnity, finding their liability vicarious. Charles Construction Corp.'s motion for summary judgment against subcontractor Crown Plastering Corp. was denied due to unresolved factual issues regarding comparative fault.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Scaffolding AccidentWorker FallVicarious LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnityGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityProximate CauseAppellate Affirmation
References
11
Case No. Claim 230
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

This case involves an appeal by Tribune New York Holdings, Inc. (NY Holdings) of an Administrator's denial of its motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in "Claim 230." Claim 230 originated from EEOC discrimination charges filed by employees of the New York Daily News, alleging ongoing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stemming from a larger class action suit against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and various publishers. NY Holdings argued that the claimants failed to prosecute diligently under Rule 41(b) and could not substantiate their discrimination claims for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The District Court, granting deference to the Administrator's findings akin to an arbitrator's decision, affirmed the Administrator's denial of both motions. The court concluded that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion regarding diligent prosecution and that genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination persisted, thereby precluding summary judgment, while cautioning against further delays.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Affirmative ActionConsent DecreeSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionRule 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 56(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOC
References
21
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Jamesway Corp.

This case addresses whether claims arising from a debtor's rejection of non-residential real property leases, which were assumed in a prior Chapter 11 case (Jamesway I), are entitled to administrative priority in a subsequent Chapter 11 case (Jamesway II). Landlords sought administrative expense status for these claims, while Jamesway and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors argued they were general unsecured claims subject to statutory limitations. The court denied the Landlords' motion, holding that the claims do not qualify for administrative priority in Jamesway II because the leases were not assumed in this distinct second proceeding and did not provide an actual benefit to the Jamesway II estate. Consequently, the court granted Jamesway's cross-motion, classifying the Landlords' claims as general unsecured pre-petition claims, subject to the caps outlined in § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

BankruptcyChapter 11Lease RejectionAdministrative ClaimUnsecured ClaimSummary JudgmentSuccessive Bankruptcy FilingsCreditor PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionEstate Preservation
References
33
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08009
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2018

Giannas v. 100 3rd Ave. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ioannis Giannas, allegedly sustained personal injuries while working on a renovation project, claiming he fell from a scaffold that shifted. He sued alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against 100 3rd Avenue Corp. and JF Contracting Corp., and granted JF's motion to dismiss the complaint against it. The Supreme Court also denied Rockledge Scaffolding Corp.'s motion to dismiss the common-law negligence claim against it and its contractual indemnification cross-claim against JF. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding a triable issue of fact regarding the accident's cause for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and concluding that JF lacked the requisite supervisory control for Labor Law liability. The court further affirmed the denial of Rockledge's motions due to a triable issue of fact concerning negligent scaffold installation, which precluded summary judgment on both the common-law negligence claim and the contractual indemnification cross-claim.

scaffolding accidentpersonal injuryLabor Law § 240(1)common-law negligencecontractual indemnificationconstruction manager liabilitysummary judgmenttriable issue of factagencysupervisory control
References
13
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
Case No. Index No. 656523/22|Appeal No. 5769|Case No. 2025-00122
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

Gordon v. Triumph Constr. Corp.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendant Triumph Construction Corp.'s motion to dismiss plaintiffs' breach of contract claim. The court held that workers employed under public works contracts possess both an administrative remedy under Labor Law § 220(3)(a) and a third-party right to pursue a breach of contract claim for underpayment against the general contractor. Consequently, the exhaustion of administrative remedies is not a prerequisite for such claims. This decision clarifies the available legal avenues for workers seeking redress for underpayment in public works projects.

Public Works ContractsBreach of ContractUnderpaymentAdministrative RemediesDismissal MotionCPLR 3211(a)(7)First DepartmentAppellate ReviewGeneral Contractor LiabilityLabor Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. Ndola Pharmacy Corp.

Plaintiff Siew Lian Rivera brought an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law, Human Rights Law, Administrative Code, and common law claims against Ndola Pharmacy Corp. and several individuals. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the FLSA and Labor Law claims and to dismiss state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court denied partial summary judgment, finding Rivera's testimony sufficient for overtime claims despite credibility questions. Supplemental jurisdiction was retained for the sexual harassment claim against N. Patel due to its connection to wage allegations, but other state law claims were dismissed without prejudice for lacking a common nucleus of operative fact with the federal claim. Additionally, certain motions related to amending the answer regarding the plaintiff's standing due to bankruptcy were granted in part and denied in part.

FLSAOvertime CompensationWage ClaimsSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentSupplemental JurisdictionBankruptcy EstateCredibility of WitnessEmployment Law
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 21,432 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