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

Gould v. General Mills, Inc.

Plaintiff Gould, a longshoreman, was injured in 1973 while unloading a vessel and sued General Mills, Inc., alleging negligence and breach of warranty due to defective equipment. General Mills, the vessel's owner and cargo consignee, then filed a third-party complaint against Great Lakes Associates, Inc., the stevedore and Gould's employer, claiming negligence and breach of Great Lakes's warranty of workmanlike performance. Great Lakes moved for summary judgment, citing the exclusivity provision of the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (33 U.S.C. § 905) as immunity from General Mills's indemnity claim. The court denied Great Lakes's motion, ruling that General Mills's claim was not solely based on Gould's injury but primarily on Great Lakes's alleged breach of independent contractual obligations and implied warranties to perform work safely.

Longshoreman injuryNegligence claimBreach of warrantyThird-party actionSummary judgment motionLongshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation ActExclusivity provisionIndemnification claimWorkmanlike performanceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. CA 12-02373
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2013

ABBOTT, JONATHAN v. CROWN MILL RESTORATION DEVELOPMENT

The plaintiff, Jonathan Abbott, commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC, seeking damages for injuries from a fall. A default judgment was entered against Crown Mill after it failed to appear at a damages inquest. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and meritorious defenses, including that the Workers' Compensation Law barred recovery. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, affirming the denial to vacate the default judgment but granting the motion in part to vacate the default judgment only insofar as it awarded specific damages. The case was remitted to Supreme Court, Onondaga County, for a new assessment of damages. The court found Crown Mill failed to establish a reasonable excuse for its default and did not prove fraud or misrepresentation. Additionally, appeals related to an enforcement action based on piercing the corporate veil were dismissed or affirmed.

Default JudgmentVacaturDamages AssessmentAppellate ReviewLaw Office FailureCorporate Veil PiercingNegligencePersonal InjuryAppealsJudicial Discretion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 1959

In Re the Arbitration Between Wamsutta Mills & Pollock

Wamsutta Mills, an employer, initiated a proceeding in New York Supreme Court to stay an arbitration brought by the Textile Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO. The union removed the case to a federal district court, arguing it constituted a 'suit for violation of contracts' under Section 301(a) of the Labor Management Relations Act. District Judge Dimock determined that a proceeding to stay arbitration primarily involves contract interpretation rather than violation, thereby ruling the removal unauthorized. After a reargument, the court reaffirmed its decision, emphasizing that the arbitration was governed by Massachusetts law, making the employer's motion a separate, non-removable proceeding. Consequently, the motion to remand the case to state court was granted.

Arbitration StayLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301(a)Federal Court JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionContract InterpretationCollective Bargaining AgreementMassachusetts LawNew York LawRemand Motion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mighty Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Sinensky

Plaintiff, Mighty Knitting Mills, sought an injunction against defendant, Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155, to stop picketing its premises. Plaintiff argued the picketing was unlawful, aiming to breach its agreement with Local 138, and violated employee rights. Defendant contended its right to picket for organizational purposes and to protest plaintiff's unfair labor practice of entering into a contract with Local 138 before hiring production workers. The court found that plaintiff's contract with Local 138 likely constituted an unfair labor practice. Concluding that the dispute was a legitimate labor dispute and peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the picketing was for an unlawful purpose and dismissed the complaint.

Labor DisputePicketing InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementOrganizational PicketingFirst Amendment RightsFourteenth Amendment RightsLabor Law ViolationsCivil Practice Act DisputeUnion Recognition
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02083 [181 AD3d 949]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2020

Klingsberg v. Council of Sch. Supervisors & Adm'rs-Local 1

The plaintiff, Joan Klingsberg, a tenured principal, was removed from her payroll by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) due to financial improprieties. She was represented by Charity Guerra, a staff attorney from her union, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators-Local 1 (CSA), during disciplinary proceedings. After it was revealed Guerra sought a position with the DOE, Klingsberg declined a new attorney and represented herself. Although the arbitrator upheld termination, the DOE Chancellor overturned it, imposing a six-month suspension and returning Klingsberg to a non-administrative teaching position with back pay, followed by a $200,000 settlement. Klingsberg later sued Guerra for legal malpractice and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, alleging a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court granted Guerra's motion to dismiss, finding the action preempted by federal law and barred by a prior release agreement.

Legal MalpracticeJudiciary Law § 487Federal Labor Management Relations ActPreemptionCollective BargainingConflict of InterestRelease AgreementMotion to DismissAppellate DivisionQueens County
References
5
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2012

Abbott v. Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC

This case concerns appeals from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, primarily focusing on a plaintiff's Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC. Following Crown Mill's default at a damages inquest, a default judgment was entered. The plaintiff then initiated an enforcement action, seeking to pierce the corporate veil to hold Crown Mill's owner, Vito William Lucchetti, Jr., and several related entities liable. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and Workers' Compensation Law defenses. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, vacating the default judgment's damages award and remitting for a new assessment, while affirming the denial to fully vacate the default due to Crown Mill's failure to provide a reasonable excuse. Appeals concerning dismissal of the enforcement action and a stay of discovery were also addressed, with one deemed moot.

Default JudgmentVacate JudgmentAmended ComplaintLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceCorporate Veil PiercingWorkers' Compensation LawLaw Office FailureDamages AssessmentMoot Appeal
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of School Supervisors & Administrators, Local 1 v. New York City Department of Education

The Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA) challenged the City's plan to reduce parking permits for school employees, arguing it violated their collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator initially sided with CSA, directing the reinstatement of permits. However, the Supreme Court's decision to confirm this award was deemed erroneous by the appellate court. The appellate court found the arbitration award violated public policy, was irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's authority because the power to issue on-street parking permits lies exclusively with the City's Department of Transportation (DOT), not the Department of Education (DOE). The court emphasized that the award essentially transferred DOT's regulatory authority to DOE and undermined the city's objectives to reduce congestion and pollution. Consequently, the arbitration award was vacated.

Labor disputeParking permitsCollective bargaining agreementArbitration awardPublic policy violationAdministrative lawMunicipal authorityTraffic regulationDepartment of TransportationDepartment of Education
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mills v. Heckler

Plaintiff Charles Mills sought judicial review of the Secretary of Health and Human Services' denial of social security benefits. The Secretary repeatedly requested extensions to file an answer, citing administrative burdens and limited resources, which the court ultimately granted. Despite granting the extension, the court also ordered the Secretary to pay Mills interim benefits from the date the answer was initially due until it is filed. The court reasoned that this would balance the Secretary's administrative concerns against the claimant's statutory right to a speedy review and provide an incentive for expeditious action. The decision referenced several similar cases where interim benefits were awarded during periods of administrative delay or remand, and established recoupment procedures if Mills is eventually found ineligible for benefits.

Social Security BenefitsInterim BenefitsExtension of TimeAdministrative DelayJudicial DiscretionDisability ClaimsRecoupment ProceduresStatutory ReviewFederal CourtClaimant Rights
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casale v. Washington Mills Electro Mineral Corp.

A laborer, employed by Monteleone and Marchetti (M&M), sustained a back injury while removing metal alloy residue from a furnace owned by Washington Mills Electro Mineral Corp. The plaintiff initiated legal action against Washington Mills, citing violations of Labor Law § 200 (1) and § 241 (6), alongside a negligence claim. Washington Mills subsequently involved M&M and Falls Steel Erectors, Inc. (Falls Steel) as third-party defendants. The Supreme Court partially granted summary judgment to M&M and Falls Steel, dismissing aspects of the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and negligence cause of action. The appellate court, disagreeing with the plaintiff's arguments, modified the order, concluding that the section 200 (1) claim and the negligence cause of action should have been dismissed entirely due to the absence of Washington Mills' supervisory control over the work methods. Furthermore, the court ruled that removing metal residue did not constitute 'demolition work' under Labor Law § 241 (6). Consequently, the order was modified to grant full summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, third-party complaint, and cross claims in their entirety.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityIndustrial AccidentThird-Party ClaimStatutory InterpretationConstruction Site SafetyOwner LiabilityEmployer Liability
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 598 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