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. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clayton B. Obersheimer, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff, a subcontractor for Massa Construction, Inc., initiated an action against defendant surety to secure payment on a labor and materials bond after Massa ceased payments due to alleged breaches by plaintiff. Defendant denied plaintiff's claim, asserting plaintiff materially breached its subcontract by failing to make pension contributions, provide releases, and obtain a separate payment bond. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability, which defendant appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding plaintiff presented sufficient evidence of compliance and defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact regarding a material breach. The court noted that alleged non-payments to suppliers only affected the subcontract price, not Massa's obligation to continue performance, and found no requirement for plaintiff to pay pension contributions to the Iron Workers District Council or obtain a separate payment bond from glaziers unions.

SubcontractorSurety BondPublic Improvement ProjectLabor and Materials BondPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractPension ContributionsPayment ObligationsGlaziers Unions
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tahini Investments, Ltd. v. Bobrowsky

Plaintiff appealed two orders concerning a purchase-money mortgage and alleged misrepresentation during the sale of a 93-acre farm. Defendant, the seller, had represented the property as a horse farm, but industrial waste drums were later discovered. Plaintiff claimed defendant knew of the dumping site and failed to disclose it, constituting actionable misrepresentation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, denying knowledge and citing a disclaimer clause in the contract. The appellate court found triable issues of fact, stating that concealment of material facts can be misrepresentation, and a disclaimer does not always preclude claims if facts are peculiarly within the seller's knowledge. The court reversed the summary judgment, denying defendant’s motion and granting plaintiff’s motion to depose a nonparty witness.

MisrepresentationReal Estate SaleProperty DisclosureSummary Judgment ReversalMaterial Fact ConcealmentDisclaimer ClausePeculiar Knowledge DoctrineDeposition of Nonparty WitnessIndustrial Waste DiscoveryDutchess County Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffrey BB. v. Cardinal McCloskey School & Home for Children

Plaintiffs, adoptive parents of three children, sued Cardinal McCloskey School and Home for Children for fraudulent misrepresentation and intentional concealment regarding one child's (Michelle BB.) prior sexual abuse, and sued clinical social worker Tina Privitera for negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court determined that the Supreme Court erred in dismissing the complaint against Cardinal McCloskey, finding that genuine questions of fact existed concerning concealment, materiality, causation, and scienter, and that the action was not time-barred. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal of punitive damages claims and all claims against Privitera, citing a lack of evidence. The order was therefore modified, reversing the dismissal of pecuniary damages claims against Cardinal McCloskey, and otherwise affirmed.

Fraudulent MisrepresentationIntentional ConcealmentChild Sexual AbuseAdoptive ParentsSocial Worker NegligenceSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsPecuniary DamagesPunitive DamagesAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carlingford Australia General Insurance v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Carlingford Australia General Insurance Limited (plaintiff) and defendant reinsurers, including St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company, Aetna Insurance Company, and CIGNA Corporation, along with broker Marsh & McLennan, Inc., concerning a worker's compensation reinsurance policy. The core issue revolves around whether the reinsurance was on an aggregate or per-occurrence basis. Defendants moved to amend their answers to introduce an affirmative defense and counterclaim for rescission, alleging the plaintiff concealed material facts about its premium arrangements with the insured (Courtaulds-Nilsen), which seemingly guaranteed the plaintiff a profit. The court, after reviewing arguments and relevant case law such as Sun Mutual Insurance Company v. Ocean Insurance Company and China Union Lines v. American Marine Underwriters, granted the reinsurers' motion to amend their answers, concluding that the arguments regarding the materiality of the non-disclosures address the merits and should be allowed to be tested.

Reinsurance DisputeWorker's Compensation InsuranceMotion to Amend PleadingsAffirmative DefenseCounterclaim for RescissionMaterial NondisclosureInsurance PremiumsUnderwriting PracticesBroker LiabilityContract Interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Campbell v. Interstate Materials Corporation

The claimant, an operating manager for Interstate Materials Corporation, suffered injuries to his neck, back, and knees in August 2006 and a second lower back injury in April 2008. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially classified the claimant with a permanent total disability and struck the independent medical examiner's report. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, finding the IME report improperly precluded due to the examiner's hospitalization and reclassified the claimant with a permanent partial disability, equally apportioned between the two accidents. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in considering the IME report and that substantial evidence supported both the permanent partial disability classification and the equal apportionment of the disability.

Permanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityWorkers' Compensation BoardApportionment of DisabilityMedical EvidenceIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Cross-Examination RightsAbuse of DiscretionSubstantial EvidenceConflicting Medical Opinions
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clancey v. American Management Ass'n, Inc.

This age discrimination action involves plaintiffs alleging violations of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and New York State statutes against defendant American Management Association (AMA). AMA moved for summary judgment, arguing that the plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees, and thus not eligible for ADEA claims. The court, applying the 'economic realities' test consistent with Second Circuit precedent, found numerous disputed material facts regarding the plaintiffs' employment status. These facts included AMA's control over plaintiffs, their opportunity for profit or loss, the duration of their working relationship, and the integral nature of their work to AMA's business. Consequently, the court denied AMA's motion for summary judgment, determining that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether the plaintiffs were employees or independent contractors.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawIndependent Contractor StatusSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Realities TestADEAFLSAWorker ClassificationControl TestSecond Circuit Precedent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peckham v. Peckham Materials Corp.

This case involves an appeal by the defendant, Peckham Materials Corporation, in a wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, John S. Peckham, was killed in a helicopter crash while a passenger in a company-owned helicopter. The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment, striking the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The Appellate Division reversed the order, holding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of compensation benefits. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court with instructions to defer the motion's disposition until the Workers' Compensation Board makes a final determination regarding the plaintiff's eligibility for benefits.

Wrongful DeathWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHelicopter AccidentEmployer LiabilityJudicial DeferenceRemittalEstate Claim
References
4
Case No. 91 Civ. 2519
Regular Panel Decision

Freer v. Mayer

Shareholder David Freer filed a derivative action against E. Hale Mayer and Progressive Bank, Inc., alleging violations of Section 14(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Freer claimed that proxy statements omitted material facts regarding a retirement agreement between Mayer and the bank, particularly concerning its business purpose. The District Court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the federal claims, holding that directors were not obligated to disclose underlying motivations, provided objective material facts were disclosed. Subsequently, the court dismissed the remaining state law claims, including breach of fiduciary duty and corporate waste, citing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction after the federal claims were resolved.

Securities Exchange ActProxy StatementShareholder Derivative SuitSummary JudgmentFiduciary DutyCorporate WasteSupplemental JurisdictionMaterial OmissionBusiness Judgment RuleRule 14a-9
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2011

Baisch, Inc. v. Pike Co.

This case is an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which denied the defendant's motion for partial summary judgment on its counterclaim for breach of a construction contract. The defendant alleged that the plaintiff failed to perform in a timely manner, provide adequate labor and materials, and abandoned the contract. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding that issues of fact existed regarding what constituted a reasonable time for performance when the contract did not specify it, and the adequacy of labor and materials supplied by the plaintiff. Furthermore, the court determined there was an issue of fact as to whether the plaintiff's actions constituted an unqualified and clear refusal to perform the entire contract, which would be considered an anticipatory repudiation. The court also declined to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal.

construction contractbreach of contractsummary judgmenttimely performanceadequate labor and materialsanticipatory repudiationcontract abandonmentappellate reviewissues of factcontract interpretation
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,519 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