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

Salomon v. Adderley Industries, Inc.

Plaintiffs Geordany J. Salomon, Donielle Lewis, Dwight Edghill, and Shanroy Powell sought to amend their complaint against Adderley Industries, Inc. to include American Communications Industries, Inc. and several individuals (Lawrence Presser, Joseph Misseri, Vincent Cestaro) as additional defendants. They also requested to add a new claim under New York Labor Law Section 195. Judge Paul A. Crotty of the Southern District of New York reviewed the motion, applying Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a) and 16(b). The court granted the motion to add the new corporate and individual defendants, finding that the plaintiffs were diligent in seeking the amendment after new information emerged during discovery and that the proposed claims of employer status were plausible under the FLSA and NYLL. However, the request to add the NYLL § 195 claim was denied because the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate sufficient good cause for its late inclusion.

Amendment of PleadingsJoinder of PartiesEmployer LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ClaimsDiscoveryGood Cause StandardUndue DelayFutility of Amendment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Findlay Industries, Inc.

The Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Findlay Industries Inc. for alleged unpaid contributions related to vacation and holiday pay, seeking back contributions, liquidated damages, and injunctive relief. Findlay Industries Inc. maintained that its collective bargaining agreements with four local unions only required contributions for 'hours worked,' not for vacation or holiday pay. The court found that Findlay had consistently contributed based on 'hours worked' since 1973, and the Fund had knowingly accepted this interpretation for many years. Despite previous audits and demands, the Fund's claims for additional contributions were rejected, and the court ruled that the collective bargaining agreements required contributions only for 'hours worked.' Consequently, all claims by the plaintiff Fund were dismissed on the merits.

Pension Fund DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementHours WorkedVacation PayHoliday PayERISALMRAContract InterpretationEmployer ContributionsTrust Fund
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 19, 1983

Elmsford Sheet Metal Workers, Inc. v. Shasta Industries, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, in favor of the plaintiff against defendant Shasta Industries, Inc., for breach of contract. The plaintiff's claim arose from the defendant's failure to deliver travel trailers by January 15, 1980, as stipulated in the contract for the Lake Placid Olympics. The defendant argued that the delivery deadline was extended by mutual assent. However, the contract explicitly required written modifications. The trial court found no compliance with the modification clause, nor any basis for waiver or estoppel, a finding affirmed by the appellate court. The judgment in favor of the plaintiff for $31,366.72 was affirmed, with costs.

Breach of ContractDelivery DeadlineWritten ModificationWaiverEstoppelCommercial LawContractual TermsAppellate ReviewPerformance ObligationUniform Commercial Code
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02280 [216 AD3d 404]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2023

Carey v. Toy Indus. Assn. TM, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order regarding claims against Freeman Expositions, Inc., a third-party defendant. Plaintiff Kevin Carey, alleged to be a special employee of Freeman, was injured while working. The Supreme Court initially denied Freeman's motion for summary judgment on contractual indemnification, common-law indemnification, and contribution claims from Toy Industry Association, Inc. The Appellate Division granted summary judgment dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims, finding that Workers' Compensation Law precluded them due to Carey's status as a special employee of Freeman. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on contractual indemnification, citing remaining factual issues regarding Freeman's 'direct control.' An appeal concerning leave to renew was dismissed as academic.

summary judgmentcontractual indemnificationcommon-law indemnificationcontribution claimsspecial employeeWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3014judicial admissionsscope of employmentappellate review
References
9
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01845
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2021

Goya v. Longwood Hous. Dev. Fund Co., Inc.

This case from the Appellate Division, First Department, involves appeals related to a Labor Law action stemming from an incident on a fire escape ladder. The court modified several Supreme Court orders, granting summary judgment dismissal for A.A.D. Construction Corp. on a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while denying renewal for a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. It also addressed complex issues of contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance among various defendants and third-party defendants, including Longwood Housing Development Fund Co., Inc., Melcara Corp., AIM Construction of NY Inc., Clark & Wilkins Industries, Inc., Cross Contracting, Inc., and Triboro Maintenance Corp. The court affirmed in part, modified in part, and reversed a judgment dismissing a contribution claim, reinstating it.

Labor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractFailure to Procure InsuranceElevation-Related RiskFire Escape LadderStatutory AgentAnti-Subrogation
References
24
Case No. 71 Civ. 2381
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 1971

Botany Industries, Inc. v. New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

Botany Industries, Inc., an employer, sought to vacate a labor arbitration award, while the New York Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, the union, sought its confirmation and enforcement. The dispute arose from a 1966 agreement between Botany and the Joint Board, which restricted Botany from doing business with non-union manufacturers of boys', students', and junior clothing and from licensing its 'Botany' trademark under similar conditions. Botany argued these provisions constituted an illegal 'hot cargo' agreement under section 8(e) of the Labor Management Relations Act. The union contended the agreement was protected by the 'garment industry exemption' or was a 'work preservation clause.' The court, presided over by Chief Judge Edelstein, found it had jurisdiction to review the award. It determined Botany did not fall under the garment industry exemption, nor was the agreement a valid work preservation clause. Consequently, the court held the agreement void and unenforceable, thereby vacating Arbitrator Gray's award.

Labor LawArbitration AwardHot Cargo ClauseGarment Industry ExemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewUnfair Labor PracticeUnion AgreementContract EnforcementTrademark Licensing
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Enderlin v. Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc.

Plaintiff, George D. Enderlin, an employee of Salhen Enterprises, Inc., sustained a back injury while working on an asbestos removal project at the Ginna Nuclear Power Plant, owned by Rochester Gas & Electric (RG&E) and contracted by Hebert Industrial Insulation, Inc. He twisted his back when a power screw gun slipped while he was on a stepladder, prompting him to grab a pipe to steady himself, though he did not fall. Enderlin and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241, which was initially denied summary judgment by the Supreme Court for the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding insufficient evidence that RG&E or Hebert supervised the work for Labor Law § 200 liability. Furthermore, the court determined that the alleged violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 (e) regarding stepladder security was not the proximate cause of the accident, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Construction accidentLabor LawWorkplace safetySummary judgmentProximate causeStepladderAsbestos removalPersonal injuryAppellate reviewMonroe County
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1985

In Re Roblin Industries, Inc.

Roblin Industries, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor, sought final court approval for a $12 million interim financing stipulation with Marine Midland Bank and Chemical Bank. United States Trust Company of New York, representing subordinated debenture holders, and other unsecured creditors objected to several key provisions, including a blanket waiver of potential claims against the banks, a stipulation of perfected security interests, cross-collateralization, and a super-priority for the lenders. The court found the waiver of rights and the pre-adjudication of lien validity to be inappropriate, as they could undermine the debtor's avoidance powers and circumvent adversary proceedings. Despite acknowledging the debtor's immediate need for funds and the difficulty in securing alternative financing, the court ultimately denied final approval of the proposed financing order. The existing interim financing protections were extended for a brief period to allow for a potential appeal.

Chapter 11 BankruptcyDebtor-in-Possession FinancingInterim Financing OrderCross-CollateralizationSuper-Priority LienCreditor ObjectionsWaiver of DefensesAvoidance PowersSecured DebtUnsecured Debt
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Bush Industries, Inc.

This case involves a Chapter 11 reorganization plan for Bush Industries, Inc., a furniture manufacturer. The Official Committee of Equity Security Holders objected to the plan, arguing it violated the absolute priority rule, proposed improper general releases, and lacked good faith due to a "golden parachute" for the principal officer, Paul S. Bush. Bankruptcy Judge Carl L. Bucki determined that the debtor's enterprise value did not exceed outstanding claims, thus upholding the absolute priority rule regarding pre-petition stock cancellation. However, the court found that the renegotiated employment contract for Paul Bush and the proposed releases for corporate management constituted a breach of fiduciary duty by officers and directors, violating the good faith requirement of 11 U.S.C. § 1129(a)(3). Consequently, the court denied confirmation of the plan in its present form, requiring the debtor to demonstrate good faith in a revised plan, possibly by distributing the premium secured by management to all shareholders.

Chapter 11 BankruptcyPlan of ReorganizationAbsolute Priority RuleFiduciary DutyCorporate GovernanceGolden ParachuteValuation MethodologiesDiscounted Cash Flow AnalysisComparable Companies AnalysisExit Multiple
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 12,713 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