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

Stena Line (U.K.) Ltd. v. Sea Containers Ltd.

This action involves a dispute between Stena Line (U.K.) Limited (Stena) and Sea Containers Ltd. along with its subsidiary Ferry and Port Holdings Limited (Holdings) concerning a post-closing adjustment to the purchase price of a ferry business. Stena seeks to compel arbitration over a balance sheet dated March 31, 1990, which is crucial for calculating the adjustment. Holdings does not oppose arbitration but seeks to limit its scope, arguing that Stena waived its right to challenge an earlier balance sheet from December 31, 1989. The court grants Stena's petition to compel arbitration regarding the March 31 balance sheet, allowing the arbitrator to examine the procedures of the December balance sheet but restricting any alteration of its findings without the parties' consent. The arbitrator is tasked with determining whether the March balance sheet aligns with the agreement, considering UK GAAP standards, consistency, and a true and fair view of the business.

ArbitrationStock Purchase AgreementBalance Sheet DisputePost-Closing AdjustmentUK GAAPContract InterpretationWaiverScope of ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActBusiness Sale
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05217 [151 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2017

March Associates Construction, Inc. v. CMC Masonry Construction

This case involves an appeal in a declaratory judgment action concerning indemnification obligations stemming from an underlying wrongful death lawsuit. March Associates Construction, Inc., and other plaintiffs (respondents), sought a declaration that Blue Ridge Construction, Inc., and its insurers (defendants/appellants), were obligated to indemnify them in a wrongful death action and reimburse $300,000 paid in settlement. The wrongful death action arose from a construction accident where an alleged employee of Blue Ridge fell and died. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs and denied the defendants' cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order by reversing the grant of summary judgment to the plaintiffs, finding they failed to eliminate triable issues of fact regarding the decedent's employment status. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion, concluding that a settlement stipulation in the underlying action did not bar the indemnification claims and that the defendants also failed to resolve factual issues concerning the decedent's employment and Blue Ridge's negligence.

Declaratory JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWrongful DeathConstruction AccidentLabor Law ViolationsInsurance Coverage DisputeEmployee StatusRes Judicata Defense
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollack v. Safeway Steel Products, Inc.

Plaintiff Emil Pollack, a mason tender, fell from scaffolding while working on a Lowe's store construction site in Orangeburg, New York, on September 25, 2002, sustaining injuries. He sued Safway Steel Products, Inc., March Associates (general contractor), Orangeburg Holding, LLC (land owner), and Lowe's Home Centers, Inc. (developer), alleging violations of New York Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, along with common law negligence and strict products liability. Both plaintiff and defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) against March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg due to factual disputes. The court also denied March, Lowe's, and Orangeburg's cross-motion for summary judgment. Safway's motion for summary judgment was granted for the Labor Law § 200 claim but denied for §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims. March's request for contractual and common law indemnification from CMC Concrete Masonry (a subcontractor and third-party defendant) was denied for summary judgment purposes due to unresolved issues of fault.

Summary judgmentLabor LawScaffolding accidentConstruction site injuryProximate causeContributory negligenceNon-delegable dutyGeneral contractor liabilityOwner liabilityThird-party action
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 1993

31 West 47th Street Co. v. Bevona

The case involves a petition to stay arbitration filed by 31 West 47th Street Co. and Lipton against Local 32B-32J, AFL-CIO. The dispute arose after 31 West stopped remitting membership benefit fund contributions, asserting the collective bargaining agreement had expired. The agreement contained an 'Evergreen Clause' stating it would remain in effect until a successor agreement was negotiated or cancelled with a three-day written notice, which 31 West failed to provide. The Supreme Court initially granted the stay, but the appellate court reversed, denying the petition and directing arbitration, emphasizing the 'Evergreen Clause' and that termination issues are for the arbitrator.

Collective bargaining agreementArbitration clauseEvergreen clauseUnion contributionsContract terminationAppellate reversalLabor relationsEmployer-employee disputeCommercial buildingNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1979

Telaro v. Eastman Kodak Co.

The claimant appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on March 13, 1979, which affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge’s decision from March 31, 1978. The original decision disallowed the claim on the grounds that the claimant did not sustain an accident arising out of and in the course of employment, and that notice was untimely. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the board majority's determination regarding the absence of an employment-related accident. The decision emphasizes that the board's resolution of credibility and testimony weight is not to be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence. Consequently, the board's decision was affirmed without costs.

AccidentEmploymentNoticeSubstantial evidenceCredibility determinationAppellate reviewWorkers’ Compensation Board decisionClaim disallowanceAffirmed decision
References
2
Case No. ADJ2925672 (MON 0319752) ADJ176214 (MON 0319757)
Regular
Apr 24, 2009

GEORGE ZIMMERMAN vs. WARNER BROTHERS STUDIO FACILITIES, WARNER BROTHERS WORKERS' COMP.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied George Zimmerman's petition for reconsideration regarding a March 26, 2004 injury, agreeing that it did not arise out of his employment. However, the Board granted reconsideration to correct a mathematical error in the permanent disability award for a cumulative trauma back injury, adjusting the award from 31.5% to 30.5% after a 50% apportionment to non-industrial factors. The Board affirmed the WCJ's determination regarding the apportionment for the cumulative trauma injury, while clarifying that the specific March 26, 2004 injury was not industrial. The Amended Findings and Award were modified to reflect the corrected permanent disability rating and attorney fees.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryBack InjuryLeft Knee InjuryApportionmentPermanent Disability RatingAgreed Medical ExaminerTemporary Disability
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2010

Claim of Cucinella v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant, a bus driver, sustained neck and back injuries in March 2000 and was awarded workers' compensation benefits, later found to be permanently partially disabled. In March 2006, the self-insured employer alleged a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. A workers' compensation law judge assessed a mandatory penalty of benefit forfeiture from January 2002 to January 2005. The Workers' Compensation Board modified this to include a discretionary penalty of disqualifying the claimant from future benefits. The claimant appealed this decision; however, the Board subsequently rescinded its October 31, 2008 determination on June 29, 2010, rendering the appeal moot.

Workers' Compensation AppealBenefit ForfeiturePermanent Partial DisabilityMoot AppealSection 114-a ViolationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawEmployer LiabilityDiscretionary PenaltyMandatory Penalty
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosen v. Dick

The Trustee of Bermec Corp. sued Arthur Andersen & Co. for negligence, among other claims. Andersen moved for partial summary judgment, asserting the negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The parties had an agreement extending the limitation period if an action was "instituted" by March 31, 1974. Although the complaint was filed on March 21, 1974, Andersen was not served until April 2, 1974. The court ruled that under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 203(b)5, a claim is timely if the summons and complaint are delivered to the appropriate officer and served within sixty days. Applying this state law principle, the court found the action was timely instituted and denied Andersen's motion for partial summary judgment.

Statute of LimitationsNegligencePartial Summary JudgmentFederal Bankruptcy ActCommencement of ActionService of ProcessFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesErie DoctrinePendent Jurisdiction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Via Taxi, Inc.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for an injury sustained on March 31, 2007. The State Insurance Fund (SIF) denied coverage, citing the employer's prior policy cancellation due to nonpayment in 2003 and an outstanding balance at the time of reapplication in December 2006. SIF informed the employer in January 2007 that a new policy required debt satisfaction. Although the debt was cleared in March 2007, the employer did not reapply until May 11, 2007, making the new policy effective only from that date. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the employer lacked coverage on the injury date and imposed penalties under Workers’ Compensation Law § 26-a. The appellate court affirmed, finding substantial evidence for the Board's decision and rejecting the employer's estoppel argument.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CoverageUninsured EmployerPenaltiesState Insurance FundPolicy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsEstoppelAppellate ReviewBoard Decision
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,011 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