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. 2019 NY Slip Op 08510
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2019

Franklin v. T-Mobile USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mark Franklin, brought an action against T-Mobile USA, Inc. and Dyckman Realty Associates L.P. T-Mobile and Dyckman Realty then filed a third-party action against Energy Design Service Systems, LLC, seeking contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied T-Mobile and Dyckman Realty's motion for summary judgment on their indemnification claim. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that issues of fact regarding the negligence of the defendants/third-party plaintiffs precluded summary judgment.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentNegligenceDangerous ConditionPremises LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate Division First DepartmentLabor LawDuty to Keep Premises SafeNotice of Hazard
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07763 [176 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2019

Bruno v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Randal Bruno, a maintenance technician, sustained injuries when he tripped on a "step-over" on a roof leased by T-Mobile, USA, Inc. He initiated a consolidated action against T-Mobile and its predecessor, Omnipoint Communications, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing these causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendants established prima facie that the step-over was not a dangerous condition and that they lacked actual or constructive notice of any defect. The court further determined that the plaintiff's expert affidavit, relying on inapplicable code provisions, was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceLabor Law § 200Appellate DivisionDangerous conditionNotice requirementPersonal injuryWorkplace accidentAffirmed decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zivali v. AT & T MOBILITY, LLC

The plaintiffs, led by Gamze Zivali, initiated a class and collective action against AT&T Mobility, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law concerning unpaid wages and overtime. Following a period where conditional class certification was granted and over 4,100 plaintiffs opted in, the defendant moved to decertify the collective action and for summary judgment. The District Court granted the motion to decertify, concluding that the plaintiffs were not "similarly situated" due to varied employment settings and individualized defenses, making collective action treatment impractical. However, the Court denied the motion for summary judgment, citing numerous unresolved material facts. Consequently, the named plaintiff, Ms. Zivali, will proceed with her individual claims to trial.

FLSACollective ActionClass ActionWage and HourOvertime CompensationDecertificationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawTimekeeping PolicyOff-the-Clock Work
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Tredegar Corp.

Exxon Mobil Corporation sued Tredegar Corporation alleging breach of an Asset Purchase Agreement (APA). Exxon claimed Tredegar failed to indemnify it for a settlement in an underlying personal injury action and failed to cooperate in Exxon's defense as per the APA. Tredegar filed a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion to dismiss Count I, finding the indemnification provisions of the APA ambiguous regarding whether the liability was 'assumed' or 'retained'. However, the court largely denied the motion to dismiss Count II, concluding that Exxon plausibly alleged a breach of Tredegar's duty to cooperate and provide reasonable access to employees, with a partial grant for the records access claim under Section 12.7 of the APA.

asset purchase agreementindemnification clausebreach of contractduty to cooperatemotion to dismisscontract ambiguitycorporate acquisitionpre-closing occurrencespost-closing eventslitigation defense
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. 15-01392
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Music Mix Mobile LLC v. Newman (In re Stage Presence, Inc.)

This adversary proceeding involves claims by Music Mix Mobile, LLC and other plaintiffs against Stage Presence, Inc. and its owner, Allen Newman. Plaintiffs alleged they were not paid for services provided for a benefit concert and sought to hold Mr. Newman personally liable for Stage Presence's debts under alter ego or piercing the corporate veil theories. The court analyzed whether Mr. Newman excessively dominated Stage Presence and if this was used to perpetrate fraud or injustice. The decision concluded that Stage Presence maintained its separate corporate identity in key financial and operational aspects, and Mr. Newman genuinely believed the concert's funding was legitimate. Consequently, the court dismissed the alter ego claims against Mr. Newman while allowing the underlying claims against Stage Presence.

Bankruptcy LawAlter Ego DoctrinePiercing the Corporate VeilCorporate LiabilityCreditor ClaimsDebtor-Creditor LawFraudulent MisrepresentationContractual ObligationsCorporate FormalitiesUndercapitalization
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McIver v. Mobil Oil Corp.

A claimant, employed by Mobil Oil Corporation, suffered a foot injury in 1975 that led to the development of a synovial sarcoma and subsequent amputation. The claimant filed for workers' compensation, but Mobil denied a causal connection between the injury and the cancer. After conflicting expert medical testimony and procedural disputes regarding expert witnesses and evidence, the Workers' Compensation Board concluded that a causal relationship existed. Mobil appealed this decision, raising concerns about due process and the removal of evidence. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no merit in Mobil's contentions.

Workers' CompensationCausal ConnectionSynovial SarcomaAmputationExpert Medical TestimonyDue ProcessImpartial SpecialistEvidentiary RulesCross-examinationBoard Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pierno v. Mobil Oil Corp.

On February 21, 2003, a gasoline barge exploded at Port Mobil in Staten Island, causing an earthquake-like force and destruction. Plaintiff Stephen Pierno, a New York City police officer, was injured when he tripped and fell on snow and ice on Port Mobil's driveway while responding to the explosion. Pierno sued Mobil Oil Corporation, the landowner, alleging negligence and premises liability under General Municipal Law § 205-e (1). Defendants Bouchard Transportation Co., Inc., B. No. 125 Corporation, and Bouchard Coastwise Management Corp. sought dismissal or a stay, citing a federal limitation of liability proceeding and a prior injunction. The court denied all defendant motions, asserting state court jurisdiction for the land-based negligence claim and declining summary judgment due to insufficient discovery.

Gasoline barge explosionPort MobilStaten IslandPolice officer injuryPremises liabilityNegligenceAdmiralty jurisdictionMaritime law preemptionGeneral Municipal Law § 205-eSummary judgment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Monell v. Scooter Store, Ltd.

The plaintiff, a 93-year-old woman with limited mobility, commenced an action against The Scooter Store Ltd. and Pride Mobility Products Corporation after her three-wheeled Go-Go Ultra X Scooter allegedly tipped over due to a design defect and inadequate warnings. She claimed negligence, strict tort liability, and breach of warranties. The defendants sought to exclude the plaintiff's expert witness and moved for summary judgment. The court denied the motion to exclude the expert, finding his testimony sufficiently reliable. It also denied summary judgment on the claims of defective design, failure to warn, and negligence, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, summary judgment was granted to the defendants regarding the breach of express warranty claims, which the plaintiff had abandoned.

Products LiabilityDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary Judgment MotionExpert Witness AdmissibilityMobility Scooter AccidentNegligence ClaimsImplied Warranty ClaimsFederal Civil ProcedureDistrict Court Decision
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 692 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