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

Dick v. John M. Gates Construction Corp.

Plaintiff Alan F. Dick was injured when a temporary deck collapsed at a construction site in July 1984 while he was working for John M. Gates Construction Corporation, the general contractor. He and his wife sued Gates Construction, Harvest Homes (materials manufacturer), and Armand Córtese (property owner) for damages. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment against Gates Construction but granted summary judgment to Harvest Homes and Córtese. Gates Construction appealed the denial of its cross-motion for partial summary judgment, arguing Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, holding that Gates Construction, as the general contractor, had a nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 240 (1) to provide proper protection and that issues of fact regarding inadequate bracing precluded summary judgment in its favor.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Deck CollapseSummary JudgmentGeneral ContractorNondelegable DutyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyConstruction Site Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1938

Sea Gate Ass'n v. Sea Gate Tenants Ass'n

The Sea Gate Association, a private membership corporation in New York, sought a temporary injunction to prevent tenants from picketing within its private community. The association argued its right to enact and enforce rules against picketing to maintain the private residential character of Sea Gate and protect property values. The defendants, who were tenants protesting an increase in beach charges, contended that their picketing was lawful and that the streets within Sea Gate should be considered public, thus asserting violations of their constitutional rights. The court, however, emphasized the distinction between public and private rights, reaffirming the association's established authority to impose reasonable restrictions on its private property. Given that no labor dispute was involved and based on prior rulings confirming Sea Gate's private status, the court concluded that the rule against picketing was reasonable and had been breached. Consequently, the temporary injunction was granted against the defendants.

Private Property RightsTemporary InjunctionPicketing RegulationConstitutional RightsPrivate CommunityMembership CorporationProperty RegulationsTenant DisputeNew York LawBeach Access Fees
References
11
Case No. 2015-260 K C
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2016

Telsey v. Harris Water Main & Sewer Contrs., Inc.

Jerry Telsey (plaintiff) sued Harris Water Main & Sewer Contractors, Inc. (defendant) in a small claims action for $2,800. Telsey claimed defendant should have immediately determined he didn't need a new water main, despite entering into a contract for installation. Defendant argued that subsurface plumbing issues often require excavation to identify the source of problems. The Civil Court dismissed the action, and Telsey appealed. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reviewed the case under the 'substantial justice' standard for small claims and affirmed the judgment, finding that substantial justice was done between the parties.

Small ClaimsContract DisputeWater Main InstallationSubsurface PlumbingAppellate ReviewSubstantial JusticeCivil CourtKings CountyExcavationAffirmed Judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Maine

Claude L. Maine, a Chapter 13 debtor, filed for relief, listing a debt to the New York State Department of Labor for unemployment insurance benefits received through alleged willful misrepresentations. After the debtor's plan was confirmed, the State filed a claim and subsequently began deducting from the debtor's current benefits to recover the debt. The debtor moved for an order holding the State in contempt for violating the automatic stay and seeking reimbursement for attorney's fees. The State argued its actions were a permissible set-off under state law, asserting the debtor had no entitlement to future benefits until the fraudulent overpayment was recovered. The Court concluded that the State's recovery from future benefits constituted a common-law right of recoupment, which survived the bankruptcy discharge and did not violate the automatic stay. Consequently, the debtor's motion was denied in its entirety.

BankruptcyChapter 13Automatic StayUnemployment InsuranceSetoffRecoupmentFraudulent ClaimsDebtor's RightsCreditor's RightsNew York Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Main Evaluations, Inc. v. State

The claimant, Main Medical Evaluations, entered into contracts with the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) to perform consultative medical evaluations. OTDA terminated these contracts, alleging the claimant failed to disclose professional disciplinary proceedings against its chief medical officer, Arvinder Sachdev, and submitted false information during the bidding process. Following the dismissal of its claim in the Court of Claims, the claimant appealed. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that OTDA had legitimate grounds for termination due to the claimant's misrepresentations and failure to report substantial contract-related issues concerning Sachdev's integral role. Additionally, the court rejected the claimant's equal protection argument, finding no evidence of selective enforcement based on impermissible considerations.

Contract TerminationProfessional MisconductFalse RepresentationEqual ProtectionGovernment ContractsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractMedical LicensingAdministrative ProceedingsDue Diligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thome v. Benchmark Main Transit Associates, LLC

Plaintiff commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after sustaining injuries when a scissor lift he was operating tipped over. The plaintiff had been installing metal studs at the time of the accident. The defendants, Benchmark Main Transit Associates, LLC and Christa Construction, LLC, appealed an order that granted the plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. While the appellate court affirmed that the plaintiff met his initial burden for a statutory violation, it agreed with the defendants that a triable issue of fact exists regarding whether the plaintiff's own actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The case involves a factual dispute over the misuse of a safety device by the plaintiff despite warnings.

Scissor Lift AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentProximate CauseSafety Device FailureWorker MisconductTriable Issue of FactConstruction InjuryAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christine's Shoes Corp. v. 251 Main Street Corp.

The case involved a joined action where a tenant sought to enjoin 251 Main Street Corporation from performing renovations, and 251 Main Street Corporation initiated a holdover proceeding. 251 Main Street Corporation appealed the Supreme Court, Suffolk County's denial of its motion for summary judgment in the holdover proceeding. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that although the landlord had renovation rights, these could not disregard the tenant's retail business. The court found that factual questions remained regarding the tenant's allowance of reasonable access to construction workers and whether a lease default occurred. It also clarified that the preliminary injunction denial was not a merits determination and the tenant's failure to seek a Yellowstone injunction meant the notice to cure period was not tolled.

Landlord-Tenant LawSummary Judgment MotionHoldover ProceedingInjunctive ReliefCommercial Lease DisputesProperty Renovation RightsContractual InterpretationFactual DisputeAppellate AffirmanceYellowstone Injunction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2017

In re U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), a Canadian subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation, initiated a Chapter 15 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on June 2, 2017. The primary objective was to obtain recognition of its Canadian CCAA proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and to enforce the Sanction Order and the associated reorganization plan approved by the Canadian Court. No objections were raised to the requested relief. Following a hearing on June 29, 2017, the Court granted all requests, recognizing the CCAA proceeding and enforcing the Sanction Order and Plan. The Court's decision was based on USSC meeting Chapter 15 eligibility requirements, including having property in the U.S., and confirmed that the CCAA proceeding was a foreign main proceeding with USSC's center of main interests (COMI) in Canada.

Chapter 15 BankruptcyForeign Main ProceedingCross-Border InsolvencyCCAA ProceedingSanction OrderReorganization PlanInternational ComityBankruptcy Code Section 109(a)Center of Main Interests (COMI)Debtor Eligibility
References
50
Case No. CA 13-00513
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2014

DRYDEN MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. GOESSL, STANLEY

Plaintiff Dryden Mutual Insurance Company initiated an action seeking a declaration that it was not obligated to defend or indemnify Stanley Goessl in an underlying tort action, which arose from a fire during plumbing work. Defendants AP Daino & Plumbing, Inc. and its insurer, The Main Street America Group, also denied coverage for Goessl. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Dryden Mutual and against Main Street America Group. However, the Appellate Division reversed this judgment, declaring that Dryden Mutual is obligated to defend and indemnify Goessl and reimburse his attorney's fees, based on his status as a sole proprietor insured by them. Conversely, The Main Street America Group was found to have no duty to defend or indemnify Goessl, as he was deemed an independent contractor, not an employee of AP Daino, according to their policy's plain meaning and their business arrangement. Sconiers, J., dissented, arguing that the trial court's finding of Goessl as an employee should have been upheld.

Insurance coverage disputeBusiness liabilityIndependent contractor classificationEmployee statusDuty to indemnifyDuty to defendSubcontracting agreementDeclaratory judgment actionAppellate review of judgmentContract interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gates Construction Corp. v. Koschak

Walter Koschak, Jr. sustained injuries while working for Gates Construction Corporation. He and his wife, Carol Koschak, initiated a Jones Act personal injury lawsuit in New York state court. Gates Construction subsequently filed a federal declaratory judgment action to determine Walter Koschak's seaman status and then removed the state court Jones Act suit to federal court. The plaintiffs moved to remand the Jones Act suit and dismiss the declaratory judgment action. The District Court granted both motions, ruling that the removal of the Jones Act suit was untimely and declining jurisdiction over the anticipatory declaratory judgment action to prevent forum shopping and upholding the Jones Act's anti-removal provisions.

Jones ActSeaman StatusRemoval JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentTimelinessFederal Court DiscretionState Court ActionPersonal InjuryLongshore and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActForum Shopping
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 205 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