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
Oct 19, 1994

Comer v. Titan Tool, Inc.

Plaintiffs Delores Comer and Patricia Edelson, as personal representatives of Michael Comer's estate, brought a diversity action for wrongful death against Titan Tool, Inc., the manufacturer of a paint sprayer Michael Comer was using when he died. Titan Tool, Inc. then filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution from Rock & Waterscape Systems, Inc. (R&W), Comer's employer. R&W moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Florida workers’ compensation law, a death benefit payment to Delores Comer barred further liability. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules and interest analysis, found no basis for applying Florida law as R&W is a California domiciliary. The court denied R&W's motion for summary judgment, stating that triable issues remained regarding the choice of law question between New York and California, as Florida law could not control the case.

wrongful deathsummary judgmentchoice of lawdiversity jurisdictionworkers' compensationdomicileloss allocationtort lawemployer liabilityproduct liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfonso v. Pacific Classon Realty, LLC

The plaintiff was injured while employed by D.S. Imports on premises leased by Delmar Sales, Inc. and purchased by Pacific Classen Realty, LLC the day after the accident. The appellate court found that the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Pacific Classen Realty, LLC should have been granted because PCR did not own the premises at the time of the accident. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales, Inc., ruling that it failed to prove the plaintiff was a special employee or that it was an alter ego of D.S. Imports. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, as it failed to establish it was not an owner or agent.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawPremises LiabilitySpecial Employee DoctrineOwner LiabilityAppellate DecisionReal Estate OwnershipLessor LiabilityLessee Liability
References
21
Case No. 900983-2015
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Building Exterior Servs. Trust of N.Y. v. A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc.

Plaintiff Building Exterior Services Trust of New York (BEST), a group self-insurance trust, initiated an action against former members, including A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc., for unpaid monetary assessments levied in 2013 and 2014 to address a shortfall. Defendant A.W. Farrell & Son, Inc. moved to dismiss the complaint and a cross-claim, arguing that it ceased membership in 1994, was not bound by the 2000 Trust Documents, and that assessments could only be levied against current members, with any authority expiring in 2003. The Supreme Court, Albany County, denied the motion to dismiss, finding that the Trust Documents, specifically Section 4.8 of the Indemnity Agreement and Section 10.4 of the Declaration of Trust, could authorize assessments against former members for periods of participation. The court also rejected the statute-of-limitations defense, concluding that the breach-of-contract claim accrued when the defendant refused to pay the assessments.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insurance TrustUnpaid AssessmentsMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsBreach of ContractDeclaration of TrustIndemnity AgreementFormer MembersTrust Solvency
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MBB Realty Ltd. Partnership v. Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co. (In re Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Co.)

This is an appeal from a Bankruptcy Court order denying summary judgment for the appellant, MBB Realty Limited Partnership, and granting it for the appellee, The Great Atlantic & Pacific Tea Company, Inc. The dispute centered on a commercial lease, which was amended to include percentage rent and later involved A&P's plan to further downsize, leading to a contested letter agreement regarding new percentage rent terms and property alterations. The Bankruptcy Court found the letter agreement void for lack of consideration, despite A&P's subsequent payments, a decision MBB appealed. The District Court affirmed, concluding that MBB's alleged consent to exterior changes or store downsizing did not constitute valid consideration, as these actions were either not explicitly agreed upon or already permissible under the existing lease terms, thus rendering the agreement unenforceable. Consequently, arguments about ratification or the satisfaction of conditions precedent were deemed irrelevant for a void contract.

Contract LawConsiderationParol Evidence RuleSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealCommercial LeasePercentage RentLease AmendmentRatificationGood Faith and Fair Dealing
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DAR & Associates, Inc. v. Uniforce Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of DAR & Associates, Inc., its principals, and D.A.R. Temps, Inc., initiated a lawsuit against Uniforee Services, Inc. The core of the action sought a declaratory judgment that restrictive covenants and a liquidated damages provision in their contracts were unenforceable under New York law, alongside a breach of contract claim. In addressing cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court found Uniforee possessed legitimate business interests warranting the protection of the restrictive covenants, deeming them reasonable in duration and geographic scope. Furthermore, the court upheld the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause, concluding that actual damages were difficult to ascertain at the time of contract and the agreed-upon sum was reasonable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted, effectively validating the contractual provisions at issue.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseNon-solicitation ClauseLiquidated DamagesBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementLicensing AgreementUnfair Competition
References
60
Case No. Docket # 7
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. v. Union City Contractors, Inc.

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. against Union City Contractors, Inc. for unpaid debris removal services, and a Miller Act claim against Union City's sureties, Nova Casualty Company and Nova American Groups, Inc. After a bench trial in January 2008, Union City filed for bankruptcy, leading to an automatic stay on claims against them. The court, however, proceeded with Empire's Miller Act claim against Nova. The primary dispute concerned the quantity of debris removed, with Empire claiming 11,470 cubic yards. The court found Empire's evidence credible and rejected Nova's fraud defense, ultimately granting judgment in favor of Empire against Nova for $84,653.63, plus prejudgment interest.

Miller Act claimPayment bondBreach of contractSurety liabilityFederal public works projectDebris removalCubic yardage disputePrejudgment interestAttorney's fees deniedFraud affirmative defense
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06975
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2021

WDF Inc. v. Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted plaintiff WDF Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc. WDF Inc. successfully demonstrated that Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc. breached their subcontract by failing to provide sufficient workers for the project. The court found Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.'s arguments unavailing. Fidelity and Deposit Company Maryland was involved as a third-party defendant in the proceedings.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentSubcontract DisputeAppellate ReviewFailure to PerformJudicial AffirmationContract LawThird-Party ActionConstruction LawNew York Law
References
4
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06253
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2017

Ecoline, Inc. v. W.H. Peepels Co., Inc.

In a breach of contract action, the plaintiff, Ecoline, Inc., an insulation subcontractor, sought damages from defendants W.H. Peepels Company, Inc., for unpaid work on a commercial building renovation. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted Ecoline, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment in the principal sum of $53,442.57 but limited statutory interest from May 11, 2006. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the summary judgment in favor of Ecoline, Inc. However, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding statutory interest, determining that it should be awarded from June 12, 2001, as this was the earliest ascertainable date the cause of action existed. The Court concluded that Ecoline, Inc. met its prima facie burden for breach of contract, and the defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentStatutory InterestAppellate ReviewSubcontractorConstructionDamagesInvoice DisputeNew York Appellate DivisionCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brian Fay Construction, Inc. v. Morstan General Agency, Inc.

Brian Fay Construction, Inc. (plaintiff) contracted with J.E Spano and Company, agreeing to indemnify Spano. The plaintiff then instructed its insurance agents, DFW Associates, Inc. and Douglass Fenning (together DFW), and later Morstan General Agency, Inc., to add Spano as an additional insured to its general liability policy with Burlington Insurance Company. An employee of Brian Fay Construction was injured, leading to a claim against Spano and a third-party action against the plaintiff. Burlington denied coverage, citing an employee exclusion and stating there was no evidence Spano was an additional insured. The plaintiff sued the agents for failing to properly procure insurance, seeking a declaration that they were obligated to defend and indemnify. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff failed to prove that Burlington would have been obligated to cover the claim even if Spano had been properly named as an additional insured.

Insurance Broker LiabilityAdditional InsuredSummary JudgmentDuty to Procure InsuranceIndemnificationGeneral Liability PolicyEmployee Liability ExclusionAppellate ReviewConstruction ContractInsurance Coverage Dispute
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 10,149 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