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. ADJ1353365
Regular
Sep 16, 2008

MARIA GUILLEN vs. LE MERIGOT HOTEL; ARROWPOINT CAPITAL CORPORATION; MARRIOTT INTERNATIONAL/HOLLYWOOD RENAISSANCE HOTEL

The WCAB granted reconsideration, affirming the June 25, 2008 Findings and Award but amending it to be a Joint and Several Findings and Award and appointing Le Merigot as administrator.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardJoint and SeveralLe Merigot HotelArrowpoint Capital CorporationMarriott InternationalHousekeeperIndustrial InjuryNeck Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hotel Greystone Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council

This case involves a petition by Hotel Greystone to stay an arbitration initiated by the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO (the "Union"). The dispute arose from an arbitrator's decision to reconsider a previous award, which the Hotel opposed based on timeliness and the doctrine of functus officio. The District Court, presided over by Judge Kaplan, denied the Hotel's motion for a permanent stay of arbitration. The court found that the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was timely under the National Labor Relations Act and that the doctrine of functus officio did not apply due to the parties' agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that New York's CPLR time constraints for modification of awards did not bar reconsideration given the contractual provisions. Consequently, the Union's cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLMRANLRAFunctus OfficioReconsideration of AwardStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationLabor LawContract Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stephenson v. Hotel Employees & Restaurant Employees Union Local 100

This is a dissenting opinion concerning an age discrimination lawsuit brought by Albert Stephenson and Leroy Hodge against the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union Local 100 and the Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees International Union. The plaintiffs were fired in 1992, and a jury found in their favor, awarding substantial damages. The majority opinion reversed this verdict, but the dissenting judge, Mazzarelli, argues that the evidence presented at trial was legally sufficient to support the jury's finding of age discrimination. The dissent reviews the trial proceedings, jury instructions, evidentiary rulings, and damage awards, concluding that the jury had a rational basis for its decision. While affirming liability, the dissent suggests remanding the case for a collateral source hearing to determine potential offsets to the damages.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawWrongful TerminationJury VerdictAppellate ReviewLegal SufficiencyBurden of ProofPretextDamagesFront Pay
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pitta v. Hotel Waldorf-Astoria Corp.

Vito J. Pitta, as president of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, sought to vacate or remand an arbitrator's award in a dispute with ten New York City hotels. The dispute arose when hotels docked wages of room attendants who willfully "dropped" rooms as part of a partial work stoppage. The Impartial Chairman upheld the hotels' action. Pitta challenged the award, arguing it exceeded the arbitrator's authority and violated New York Labor Law section 193. The court denied Pitta's motion for summary judgment and granted the hotels' cross-motion, affirming the arbitration award. It found the arbitrator acted within his authority and that federal labor law preempts the state law regarding employer-employee economic self-help in collective bargaining.

Arbitration AwardSummary JudgmentLabor DisputeWage DockingWork StoppageCollective BargainingFederal PreemptionNew York Labor LawLabor-Management Relations ActJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 1986

Pitta v. Hotel Ass'n of New York City, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vito J. Pitta, President of the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council, AFL-CIO, and defendant Hotel Association of New York City, Inc., both moved for summary judgment concerning a June 25, 1986 arbitration award issued by defendant Millard Cass, the Impartial Chairman. The Council sought to vacate the award and compel the selection of a new chairman, while the Association aimed to confirm and enforce it. The court found that the Council had the right to unilaterally terminate Cass's term, effective sixty days after notice was given on June 2, 1986. Consequently, the court vacated the arbitration award, ruling that Cass's conclusions were contrary to the court's earlier findings of fact. The Association was directed to participate in selecting a successor chairman, with the order becoming effective on August 29, 1986, to allow for appeal.

ArbitrationLabor Management Relations ActFederal Arbitration ActImpartial ChairmanCollective Bargaining AgreementContract InterpretationEmployment at WillRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vittoria Corp. v. New York Hotel & Motel Trades Council

Vittoria Corporation filed a petition to stay arbitration demanded by the New York Hotel and Motel Trades Council under a collective bargaining agreement. The proceeding, initially in New York State Supreme Court, was removed to federal court. Vittoria argued the arbitration clause did not apply to restaurant concessionaires or a newly constructed hotel, and that certain conditions for a neutrality provision were not met. District Judge Pauley denied Vittoria's motion, finding the dispute arbitrable due to a broad arbitration clause. The Court also found that the monetary costs of arbitration do not constitute irreparable harm. Consequently, the Council's cross-motion to compel arbitration was granted, but its request for reimbursement of expenses and attorneys' fees was denied.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationFederal JurisdictionAlter Ego DoctrineIrreparable HarmNeutrality ProvisionRestaurant Concessionaire
References
27
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04220
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2024

Spina v. Browning Hotel Props., LLC

The plaintiff, Kaitlyn Spina, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss her complaint and denied her cross-motion for leave to amend. Spina sought damages for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision after allegedly being sexually assaulted by a hotel employee at a property owned and operated by the defendants, Browning Hotel Properties, LLC. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in denying Spina's cross-motion to amend, as the proposed amendments were not palpably insufficient. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Supreme Court erred in granting the defendants' motion to dismiss, as the proposed amended complaint sufficiently pleaded causes of action for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The order was reversed, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to amend was granted.

negligent hiringnegligent retentionnegligent supervisionsexual assaulthotel liabilityleave to amend complaintmotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3025 (b)Appellate Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2004

US Underwriters Ins. Co. v. CITY CLUB HOTEL

The New York Court of Appeals addresses whether an insured who prevails in a declaratory judgment action brought by an insurer to deny coverage may recover attorneys' fees, regardless of whether the insurer provided a defense in the underlying suit. U.S. Underwriters Insurance Company had disclaimed coverage for City Club Hotel, LLC and Shelby Realty, LLC after a construction worker's injury, but still provided Shelby a defense. The insurer then initiated a declaratory judgment action to establish it had no duty to defend or indemnify. The District Court's finding that the disclaimer was untimely and its denial of attorneys' fees were appealed. The Court of Appeals, responding to certified questions from the Second Circuit, affirmed that Shelby, as a prevailing insured, is entitled to recover attorneys' fees because these expenses arose as a direct consequence of the insurer's unsuccessful attempt to disclaim policy obligations. The court explicitly answered the first certified question in the affirmative, while declining to answer the second.

Insurance LawDeclaratory JudgmentAttorneys' FeesDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyNew York Court of AppealsCertified QuestionsInsurer ObligationsPolicy DisclaimerTimeliness of Disclaimer
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2004

DiPilato v. H. Park Central Hotel, L.L.C.

An electrician’s helper employed by Angel was injured when a hotel elevator plunged 18 floors during renovation. The Supreme Court initially granted partial summary dismissal of the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, denied dismissal for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence against the hotel owner (HPC) and elevator company (ACE), and dismissed a contractual indemnification claim against Angel. This appellate order modified the lower court's decision, vacating the ruling on res ipsa loquitur and denying summary dismissal of VJB's contractual indemnification claim against Angel. The court found triable issues regarding HPC and ACE's control and notice of elevator defects, and VJB's role as construction manager. The Labor Law § 240 (1) dismissal was affirmed as the elevator was not a protective device under the statute.

Summary JudgmentLabor LawNegligenceRes Ipsa LoquiturContractual IndemnificationElevator SafetyConstruction AccidentWorker InjuryThird-Party ClaimAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Janneh v. Regency Hotel, Binghamton

Mr. Janneh, a black male, sued The Regency Hotel, Binghamton, for racial discrimination after his termination as a night auditor in 1989. He initially filed claims with the New York State Division of Human Rights and the EEOC, both of which found no probable cause. He then filed a suit in United States District Court, alleging violations of Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1988, New York State Human Rights Law, and common law claims. The court dismissed the Title VII claim due to untimely filing, the § 1981 claim because it predated the 1991 Civil Rights Act, the New York Human Rights Law claim due to prior administrative adjudication, and all common law claims (intentional infliction of emotional distress, breach of implied contract, etc.) based on statute of limitations or lack of legal basis under New York law. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment to the defendant and dismissed all claims.

Racial discriminationEmployment terminationSummary judgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1988New York State Human Rights LawCommon law claimsStatute of limitationsAt-will employment
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 232 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