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. 14-CV-227
Regular Panel Decision

Kamdem-Ouaffo v. Pepsico, Inc.

Plaintiff Ricky Kamdem-Ouaffo filed an action against PepsiCo and others, alleging fraudulent commandeering of his intellectual property. He later added ScentSational Technologies LLC and Steven M. Landau as defendants. This Opinion & Order addresses Plaintiff's Motion to Intervene in ScentSational's pending lawsuit against PepsiCo and/or to consolidate his action with the ScentSational Suit. The Court denied the Motion to Intervene due to untimeliness, as Plaintiff had ample notice but delayed filing for 16 to 19 months. Furthermore, the Court denied the Motion to Consolidate, citing that the two actions are at disparate stages of litigation (Plaintiff's case dismissed, ScentSational's in discovery), which would not promote judicial economy and would cause prejudice through delay and increased expense.

InterventionConsolidationTimelinessIntellectual PropertyTrade SecretsMotion PracticeJudicial EconomyPro SeDismissalFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Case No. 90 Civ. 8473, 92 Civ. 3900, 92 Civ. 3901
Regular Panel Decision

Asbestos Litigation

Defendant Raymark Industries, Inc. moved to dismiss, stay, or transfer four of six consolidated asbestos actions. The plaintiffs in these actions (Greff, Moore, McPadden, Strafford, Ciletti, Conway) alleged exposure to asbestos causing diseases like mesothelioma and lung cancer. Raymark based its motion on claims of insufficient service of process, ineffective amendment of complaints to include Raymark as a defendant, and the applicability of abstention doctrine due to parallel state court proceedings for Ciletti and Strafford. The court denied all aspects of Raymark's motion. It found that the plaintiffs had complied with service requirements under New York Business Corporation Law § 307 and that the amendment adding Raymark as a defendant was authorized by a standing Case Management Order for asbestos litigation, overriding the need for specific court leave. Furthermore, the court determined that the conditions for federal abstention under the Colorado River doctrine were not met, upholding the federal court's obligation to exercise its jurisdiction. The court also clarified that Raymark was indeed joined to the Greff and Moore actions through a prior consolidation order, despite Raymark's bankruptcy stay arguments.

Asbestos LitigationMultidistrict LitigationMotion to DismissService of ProcessAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Abstention DoctrineColorado River AbstentionParallel State and Federal ProceedingsJurisdiction
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

Michalak v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a third-party action, Consolidated Edison Co. of New York (Con Edison) sought common-law and contractual indemnification from Akron Wrecking Co., Inc. (Akron), an employer whose employee, Michalak, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Con Edison. Akron, the third-party defendant, moved for summary judgment to dismiss Con Edison's third-party complaint. The Supreme Court initially granted Akron's motion, dismissing the complaint entirely without prejudice to contractual indemnification. On appeal, the order was modified. The Appellate Division held that Con Edison, by requiring Akron to name it as an additional insured on primary and excess liability policies, waived its right to common-law indemnification up to the aggregate limits of those policies. Consequently, Akron's motion for summary judgment was granted only to the extent of dismissing claims for common-law indemnification, with the motion otherwise denied.

IndemnificationCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance CoverageAdditional InsuredWaiver of IndemnityThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury Claim
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00112 [168 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2019

Moscati v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury case involving Michael Moscati, an excavator operator injured on a Consolidated Edison work site. Moscati's excavator slid into a creek while removing timber, leading to claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), citing various Industrial Code provisions. The Supreme Court initially granted Consolidated Edison's motion for summary judgment, dismissing these claims. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that Consolidated Edison failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Specifically, Con Ed did not demonstrate a lack of notice regarding dangerous premises conditions or an absence of authority to supervise the work.

Construction accidentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code violationsExcavator accidentSummary judgmentPrima facie caseDangerous premises conditionSupervision and controlAppellate Division
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

Schwarz v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ex-police officer with a 2002 perjury conviction related to the Abner Louima case, was hired by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (ConEd) in November 2014 as a mechanic. He was terminated approximately two weeks later, with ConEd citing "potential disruption of business operations" and "damage to the Company’s reputation" due to his notoriety. Plaintiff sued ConEd, alleging unlawful employment discrimination based on his criminal conviction history under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, incorporating Correction Law article 23-A. ConEd moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it terminated him due to business disruption and reputational risk stemming from his notoriety, not the conviction itself. The court granted ConEd's motion to dismiss, ruling that article 23-A protects against discrimination based on actual convictions, not reputation or notoriety, and that vacated convictions are not legally cognizable "convictions" under the law.

Employment DiscriminationCriminal Conviction HistoryPerjury ConvictionWrongful TerminationHuman Rights LawCorrection Law Article 23-AReputational HarmNotorietyVacated ConvictionsMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. 08 Civ. 7831, 09 Civ. 6102, 10 Civ. 2781, 10 Civ. 9184
Regular Panel Decision

Comprehensive Investment Services, Inc. v. Mudd

This Opinion & Order from the Southern District of New York addresses multiple motions to dismiss in consolidated private securities actions. Various plaintiffs, including a class action, Comprehensive Investment Services, Inc. (CIS), Edward Smith, and Liberty, alleged that Federal National Mortgage Association (FNMA), its executives, and certain underwriters made material misstatements concerning FNMA's subprime/Alt-A loan exposure, risk management, and core capital financials. The court denied defendants' motions to strike allegations and dismissed certain federal securities claims related to subprime/Alt-A exposure and risk management against FNMA, Daniel H. Mudd, and Enrico Dallavecchia. However, the court granted motions to dismiss claims regarding core capital financials and dismissed all state law claims against FNMA, Mudd, Dallavecchia, Robert J. Levin, Stephen M. Swad, Goldman, Sachs & Co., Smith Underwriters, and CIS Underwriters, including Liberty's entire complaint and claims against Levin and Swad due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

Securities LitigationMotions to DismissSecurities FraudRule 10b-5Section 10(b) Exchange ActPSLRASLUSA PreemptionFederal National Mortgage AssociationSubprime LoansAlt-A Loans
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valdivia v. Consolidated Resistance Co.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which had granted summary judgment to the defendant Consolidated Resistance Company of America, Inc., in a personal injury action. The appellate court reversed the lower court's order, denying the defendant's motion for summary judgment regarding claims asserted against it. It determined that the defendant failed to present sufficient evidence to dismiss the plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) causes of action. Furthermore, the court found the dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims premature, given that discovery was incomplete. The case was remanded, allowing the defendant to potentially renew motions after discovery has concluded.

personal injurysummary judgmentLabor Lawnegligencediscoveryappellate reviewconstruction accidentproperty ownerpremises liabilityworkplace safety
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 13,976 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