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

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08613 [156 AD3d 447]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

Rodriguez v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Ryan Rodriguez was injured while working on a movie set. Defendant Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc. was the production company. Columbia Pictures moved for summary judgment to dismiss common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, arguing it was a 'special employer' entitled to the exclusive remedy doctrine of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied this motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting Columbia Pictures' motion for summary judgment, finding it demonstrated a prima facie entitlement to the 'special employer' defense, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

Summary JudgmentSpecial EmployerWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceAppellate DivisionExclusive Remedy DoctrinePersonal InjuryFilm ProductionVicarious Liability
References
1
Case No. 14-CV-1044
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Greene v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

Plaintiff Andrew Greene sued Paramount Pictures, Red Granite Pictures, and Appian Way for defamation, alleging he was portrayed inaccurately in 'The Wolf of Wall Street' movie through the character Nicky Koskoff. Greene claimed the character, nicknamed 'Rugrat' (mocking his toupee, similar to Greene's 'Wigwam'), defamed him by depicting him engaged in criminal activity, drug use, and unprofessional behavior. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the character was a composite, not 'of and concerning' Greene, and that they did not act with actual malice. The Court found that even if Koskoff was a depiction of Greene, the plaintiff failed to show clear and convincing evidence that defendants acted with actual malice, as they did not knowingly or recklessly disregard whether the character would be perceived as Greene. Therefore, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Greene's libel claim with prejudice.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentActual MalicePublic FigureFictional CharacterComposite CharacterFirst AmendmentMovie ProductionThe Wolf of Wall Street
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Columbia Pictures Industries, Inc.

The US Department of Justice initiated an antitrust action against Columbia Pictures, MCA, Paramount Pictures, Twentieth Century-Fox, and Getty Oil Company for forming a joint venture called Premiere, alleging price-fixing and group boycott. Premiere sought to intervene as a defendant, a motion the court granted due to the recognition of its existential dependence on the lawsuit's outcome. Concurrently, nonparty witnesses objected to broad discovery demands made by the defendants. The court postponed the extensive nonparty discovery until after the preliminary injunction motion, citing the voluminous nature of the demands, the potential for undue delay, and the availability of sufficient alternative information.

AntitrustJoint VentureInterventionDiscoveryPreliminary InjunctionSherman ActPay TelevisionFilm IndustryGroup BoycottPrice-fixing
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glatt v. Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc.

This case involves a putative class action brought by former unpaid interns (Erie Glatt, Alexander Footman, Kanene Gratts, and Eden Antalik) against Fox Searchlight Pictures Inc. and Fox Entertainment Group, Inc. The plaintiffs allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and California Unfair Competition Law (CAUCL), claiming misclassification as unpaid interns instead of paid employees. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment that Gratts's CAUCL claim was time-barred but denied the remainder of their summary judgment motion. Glatt and Footman's motion for summary judgment was granted, affirming their employee status under FLSA and NYLL and identifying Searchlight as their joint employer. The court also granted Antalik's motions for class certification of her NYLL claims and conditional certification of an FLSA collective action, allowing the case to proceed for similarly situated unpaid interns.

Unpaid InternsFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawCalifornia Unfair Competition LawClass ActionCollective ActionSummary JudgmentJoint Employer LiabilityTrainee ExceptionEconomic Reality Test
References
65
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1999

Bart v. Universal Pictures

Plaintiff Eric Bart, a scene painter, sustained severe injuries from a 20-foot fall while working on a movie set. He sued Semaphore Funding, Universal City Studios, Inc., and Universal Pictures under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The initial court denied Bart's motion for partial summary judgment against Semaphore and granted Semaphore's motion for summary judgment. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating the complaint and granting Bart's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against Semaphore. The court found that Semaphore, as the permit-tee, had the contractual right to control the worksite and ensure safety, thereby qualifying as an agent of the owner for Labor Law liability, irrespective of actual control.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law liabilityConstruction site safetyOwner's agent liabilityRight to control worksiteSummary judgment reversalAppellate Division decisionNew York Supreme CourtOccupancy permitStatutory liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

This document concerns a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was denied. The decision references an earlier case cited as 26 NY3d 981 from 2015. It is noted that Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia did not participate in this ruling.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealDenied MotionAppellate ProcedureJudicial Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 9,877 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