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

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

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. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yax v. Development Team, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability concerning alleged violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order. Regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the defendant successfully raised a triable issue of fact, supported by Angelo Kambitsis's affidavit, suggesting the plaintiff might have been a recalcitrant worker. The Supreme Court's consideration of Kambitsis's affidavit was deemed a provident exercise of discretion, despite his non-disclosure as a witness, as the plaintiff had prior knowledge of his existence and the defendant offered an excuse for the oversight. For the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while the defendant's expert affidavit was inadmissible due to non-disclosure, Kambitsis's affidavit was still sufficient to create a triable issue of fact concerning the reasonableness and adequacy of the worksite conditions.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmanceRecalcitrant Worker DefenseDiscovery RulesExpert Testimony AdmissibilityAffidavit EvidenceProximate Cause
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,318 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