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

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

OTG Management, LLC v. Konstantinidis

OTG Management, LLC, a provider of airport food and beverage services, sought a preliminary injunction against its former operations manager, Aris Konstantinidis, and competitor SSP America, Inc. OTG alleged Konstantinidis breached non-compete, non-solicitation, and non-disclosure agreements by joining SSP. The court, presided by Shirley Werner Kornreich, J., partially granted the injunction. It found the non-compete clause unenforceable, citing Konstantinidis's non-unique services and the arbitrable nature of trade secret claims. However, the non-recruitment clause was deemed reasonable and enforceable, prohibiting Konstantinidis from soliciting OTG employees until April 18, 2015. The court denied the non-compete injunction and stayed the tortious interference claim against SSP, pending arbitration between OTG and Konstantinidis.

Preliminary InjunctionNon-Compete ClauseNon-Solicitation ClauseTrade SecretsRestrictive CovenantsBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceArbitrationEmployment AgreementAirport Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority

Plaintiffs (American Atheists, Dennis Horvitz, Kenneth Bronstein, and Jane Everhart) sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and state constitutions, challenging the display of a steel cross artifact in the National September 11 Museum. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court found that the Foundation's actions were attributable to the state. However, applying the Lemon test, the court determined that displaying the cross had a secular purpose, did not endorse religion, and did not create excessive entanglement. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and state law claims, concluding that no intentional discrimination was shown and that the state law claims failed for various reasons, including non-applicability to the bi-state agency or failure to comply with notice requirements. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

First AmendmentEstablishment ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSummary JudgmentState ActionReligious SymbolSeptember 11 MemorialMuseum ExhibitGovernment FundingConstitutional Law
References
80
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Evolution Online Systems, Inc. v. Koninklijke Nederland N.V.

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, involves claims of breach of contract, copyright infringement, and quantum meruit. The Court had previously dismissed the complaint, citing a forum-selection clause mandating litigation in the Netherlands. The Second Circuit remanded to clarify whether a contract with such a clause existed and if it should be enforced, or if dismissal was appropriate on forum non conveniens grounds. The District Court affirmed that a binding contract with a mandatory Netherlands forum-selection clause existed and should be enforced due to significant partial performance and mutual intent to be bound, despite the lack of a signed document. The court also determined that even without the clause, the case would be dismissed on grounds of forum non conveniens, as the Netherlands offers an adequate alternative forum and is more convenient based on public and private interest factors, including the location of proof and the applicability of Dutch law.

Contract disputeCopyright infringementQuantum meruitForum-selection clauseForum non conveniensInternational litigationDutch lawNew York lawSecond Circuit remandBreach of contract
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lischinskaya v. Carnival Corp.

A plaintiff, injured on a Carnival Cruise Lines ship in January 2005, commenced an action for damages. Carnival moved to dismiss based on a forum selection clause in the passenger contract, which stipulated litigation in federal court in Miami or a Miami-Dade County court. The Supreme Court granted the dismissal, citing lack of subject matter jurisdiction. On appeal, the court affirmed the enforceability of the forum selection clause, rejecting arguments of waiver and non-reasonable communication. It clarified that such clauses do not divest a court of subject matter jurisdiction, correcting the Supreme Court's reasoning. However, the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, denying the plaintiff's request for equitable relief under CPLR 327 (forum non conveniens), reasoning that such discretionary relief is inapplicable when dismissal is a contractual mandate rather than a discretionary decision.

Forum Selection ClauseCruise Ship ContractMaritime LawSubject Matter JurisdictionSaving to Suitors ClauseCPLR 327Forum Non ConveniensContractual EnforcementWaiver of DefenseAppellate Review
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Business MacHines Corp. v. HARRYSSON

International Business Machines (IBM) filed suit against former senior executive Anders Harrysson to enforce a forfeiture clause related to his incentive stock options. Harrysson, a Swedish national, left IBM and, within six months of exercising his options, began working for a competitor, Sun Microsystems. IBM sought to reclaim the gains from his stock options. Harrysson moved to dismiss the case on the grounds of forum non conveniens, arguing that a U.S. judgment would not be enforceable in Sweden, where all his assets are located. The court denied the defendant's motion, ruling that Harrysson had previously agreed to exclusive jurisdiction in New York courts and that IBM was willing to accept the risk of enforceability. The court noted that the balance of public and private interest factors favored retaining U.S. jurisdiction, especially given the potential for Harrysson to acquire U.S. assets in the future.

Stock OptionsForfeiture ClauseForum Non ConveniensJurisdictionContract EnforcementEmployment AgreementRestrictive CovenantInternational DisputeChoice of ForumExecutive Compensation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quantum Maintenance Corp. v. Mercy College

Quantum entered into a maintenance contract with Mercy College which included a non-compete clause preventing Mercy from employing Quantum's personnel for two years post-termination. After Mercy terminated the contract, Aramark took over the maintenance services and subsequently hired Quantum's former employees. Quantum filed a lawsuit against Aramark, alleging tortious interference with contract, claiming Aramark induced Mercy to breach the non-compete clause. Aramark sought to dismiss the complaint, arguing the contract only restricted Mercy from direct hiring and that it could not be held liable as an agent. The court denied Aramark's motion, determining that the term 'engage' in the contract could be interpreted broadly to encompass hiring through a third-party contractor and that Aramark's alleged actions might have been for its self-interest, negating its agency defense.

tortious interference with contractnon-compete clausecontract interpretationmotion to dismissagency relationshipbreach of contractmaintenance servicespersonnel clauseemployer-employee relationsthird-party liability
References
33
Case No. ADJ10782441 ADJ9193836
Regular
Apr 15, 2019

Stacy Smith vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to affirm the applicability of Labor Code section 3212 presumptions for hypertension and hernia injuries to an ocean lifeguard. However, the Board amended the decision to defer issues of permanent disability and apportionment. This deferral is due to the apparent conflict between the WCJ's 50% apportionment of hernia disability and the non-attribution clause of Labor Code section 3212. The Board returned these issues to the trial level for further hearing and determination.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code Section 3212Heart trouble presumptionHernia presumptionFire department memberOcean lifeguardCumulative injuryLumbar spine injuryRight knee injurySkin injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,434 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