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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bradlees Stores, Inc. v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance (In Re Bradlees Stores, Inc.)

St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company ("St. Paul") moved to vacate a February 6, 2003 order approving a settlement with Bradlees Stores, Inc., Bradlees, Inc., and New Horizons of Yonkers, Inc. (collectively, "Bradlees"). St. Paul premised its request on mutual mistake, arguing that both parties believed Stop & Shop Companies, Inc. ("Stop & Shop") had assumed all pre-July 1992 workers' compensation liabilities for Bradlees. The court denied the motion, finding no mutual mistake of fact but rather speculation about a future event (Stop & Shop potentially reneging on its assumed obligations). The court also noted St. Paul's sophistication and prior knowledge of its potential exposure, thus failing to establish grounds for newly discovered evidence or misrepresentation. Finally, the court denied St. Paul's request to hold the motion in abeyance, emphasizing the need to conclude the Debtors' cases.

BankruptcySettlement AgreementMotion to VacateWorkers' Compensation LiabilitiesMutual MistakeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 59Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 60(b)Bankruptcy Rules Rule 9023Bankruptcy Rules Rule 9024Letter of Credit
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. v. Hirschfeld

Plaintiffs Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. and Charles Aug filed an action against defendants Michael Hirschfeld, The Hirschfeld Companies, Inc., European American Bank (EAB), Paul Arendt, and Mark Anderson, alleging a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The plaintiffs claimed that Hirschfeld, with the complicity of EAB employees Arendt and Anderson, misappropriated corporate funds through unauthorized loans and the mishandling of a Treasury Bill, using EAB accounts. Defendants moved to dismiss the RICO claims for failure to state a claim and state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the mailings cited by plaintiffs were not

Racketeering ActivityRICO ActMail FraudScheme to DefraudMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(1)Enterprise
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tracey Road Equipment, Inc. v. Village of Johnson City

This case involves two appeals from orders and judgments of the Supreme Court in Broome County. Action No. 1 concerned Tracey Road Equipment, Inc.'s request for a declaratory judgment against the Village of Johnson City regarding insurance coverage for a street sweeper involved in an accident. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Johnson City, finding it not obligated to defend or indemnify Tracey Road, which was affirmed on appeal. Action No. 2 involved the Insurance Company of North America (INA) seeking a declaratory judgment against St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance Company, contending St. Paul was a coinsurer for Johnson City in the same accident. The Supreme Court denied INA's motion, but the appellate court reversed, declaring INA and St. Paul to be coinsurers and obligating St. Paul to pay half of Johnson City's defense and indemnification costs.

Insurance Coverage DisputeDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentLease Agreement InterpretationCoinsuranceVehicle LiabilityAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnityMotor Vehicle AccidentInsurance Policy Interpretation
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00714 [224 AD3d 1364]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2024

Triest v. Nixon Equip. Servs., Inc.

Paul Triest, an employee, sustained injuries while unloading a loaner alignment jack from a van owned by Nixon Equipment Services, Inc. Triest initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, determined that the Supreme Court correctly dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, as the incident did not involve an elevation-related risk under the statute. However, the court erred in dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding unresolved factual issues regarding Nixon Equipment Services, Inc.'s control over the work and whether Triest was a volunteer. Consequently, the order was modified to reinstate these two causes of action.

Labor Law §240(1)Labor Law §200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentWorkplace InjuryElevation-Related RiskControl of WorkVolunteer StatusAppellate ReviewPersonal Injury
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04470 [207 AD3d 1169]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 2022

Shantz v. Barry Steel Fabrication, Inc.

Paul Shantz was injured while unloading a scissors lift from a truck using an inclined ramp, getting pinned between the lift and a door frame, leading to a common-law negligence and Labor Law action against multiple defendants. The Supreme Court partially granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against some defendants and dismissed other claims and the complaint against defendant United Rentals, Inc. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dismissed United Rentals, Inc.'s appeal as they were not aggrieved. The court further modified the Supreme Court's order by denying plaintiffs' summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether the plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. Additionally, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims and the negligence cause of action.

Construction AccidentScissors LiftElevation DifferentialSummary JudgmentLabor LawNegligenceAppellate ReviewProximate CauseSafety DeviceStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of the Estate of Scott v. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc.

Paul W. Scott, a part-time body repairman, died from an injury sustained while working on a car for R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge found an employer-employee relationship, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this, concluding Scott was an independent contractor. R. M. Stevenson Motors, Inc. and its carrier appealed the Board's determination. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence that Scott operated as an independent contractor due to factors like lack of supervision, working on his own schedule, providing his own tools, and receiving a fixed payment upon completion. The court highlighted that no single factor is conclusive in determining an employment relationship.

employment relationshipindependent contractorworkers' compensationaccidental deathscope of employmentcontrol testmethod of paymentfurnishing equipmentright to dischargeappellate review
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,179 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