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. 94 Civ. 654 (MBM), 94 Civ. 2978 (MBM)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bluebird Partners, LP v. First Fidelity Bank

Bluebird Partners, L.P., a secondary purchaser of equipment trust interests for Continental Airlines, sued indenture trustees and their law firms for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) and state law. Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to prudently protect certificate holders' interests during Continental's bankruptcy by not acting timely on adequate protection motions. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Bluebird Partners lacked standing as a secondary purchaser because federal TIA claims do not automatically transfer with the security. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that under federal common law, TIA claims do not automatically transfer to subsequent purchasers who were not injured at the time of the alleged wrongdoing, thus denying standing to Bluebird Partners. The court declined to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

Trust Indenture ActStandingSecondary PurchaserSecurities LawBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayAdequate ProtectionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractNegligence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

NewMarkets Partners LLC v. Oppenheim

This Memorandum & Order addresses motions to dismiss in a case concerning false advertising under the Lanham Act and various state law claims. Plaintiffs, NewMarkets Partners LLC, CAM NewMarkets Partners LP, and Marie-Frances Mathes, allege that Defendants Sal. Oppenheim Jr. & CIE. S.C.A., CAM Private Equity Consulting & Verwaltungs GmbH, and BVT Beratungs-, Verwaltungsund Treuhandgesellsehaft für Internationale Vermorgensanlagen MBH, misused their proprietary investment model and names to market competing German funds. The court granted BVT-B's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. It also dismissed the civil conspiracy claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unfair competition claim against Oppenheim. However, motions to dismiss the false advertising claim against Oppenheim and CAM, and the unjust enrichment claim against CAM were denied. The tortious interference claim against CAM was denied as moot due to an amended complaint.

Lanham ActFalse AdvertisingPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionUnfair CompetitionCivil ConspiracyUnjust EnrichmentJoint Venture AgreementPrivate Equity FundsExtraterritorial Jurisdiction
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 1996

Velez v. Tishman Foley Partners

An ironworker, employed by Diamond International, Inc., was injured when a hoist tower's cross-bracing gave way. The plaintiff sued Universal Builders Supply, Inc. (who built the hoist tower), Tishman Foley Partners (owner/general contractor), and Glassalum International Corporation (a subcontractor). The Supreme Court modified a prior order, granting Universal's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against it. The court denied common-law indemnification for Tishman Foley Partners and Glassalum against Universal, but affirmed Tishman Foley Partners' contractual indemnification claim, noting that an owner's strict statutory liability does not preclude contractual indemnity without a showing of owner negligence.

Construction AccidentHoist TowerLabor LawIndemnificationSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral ContractorOwner LiabilityStrict LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnity
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Youngers v. Virtus Investment Partners Inc.

Lead Plaintiffs Mark Youngers, et al., brought a securities class action against Virtus Investment Partners, Inc., and other defendants. The lawsuit alleged misrepresentations concerning the performance history of the AlphaSector investment strategy, specifically that pre-2008 results were based on back-tested, hypothetical data rather than live trading, leading to inflated mutual fund valuations and fees. Defendants moved to dismiss the Second Amended Class Action Complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss in part and denied in part, dismissing Section 10(b) claims against W. Patrick Bradley and the Independent Trustees, Section 20(a) claims against multiple defendants, and Section 12(a)(2) claims against Virtus Partners and George R. Aylward. Additionally, all Section 11, Section 15, and derivative claims were dismissed in their entirety.

Securities fraudClass actionMutual fundsInvestment strategyAlphaSectorBack-tested resultsMisrepresentationOmissionLoss causationScienter
References
91
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00229 [168 AD3d 491]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2019

Sanchez v. 404 Park Partners, LP

Luis Sanchez, a construction worker, was injured after falling through an uncovered floor opening at a work site. He moved for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against the property owner, 404 Park Partners, LP, the general contractor, Sciame Construction, LLC, and subcontractor Cord Contracting Co. Inc., which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the liability findings against these parties, noting the owner and general contractor's statutory duties and the subcontractor's delegated duty to cover floor openings. Additionally, the court modified the lower court's indemnification rulings. It granted conditional full contractual indemnification to Sciame from United Air Conditioning Corp. II and conditional contractual indemnification to 404 Park and Sciame from Cord, contingent on the extent of their respective negligence, while also preserving factual issues concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Sciame.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafe Place to WorkIndustrial Code ViolationsProximate Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

Lue v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP

Plaintiff Lue sued the law firm Finkelstein & Partners, LLP for legal malpractice, alleging their failure to preserve his Labor Law § 240 claim against K-Mart Corporation during bankruptcy resulted in reduced recovery. The Supreme Court granted Lue's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. Defendants appealed, arguing Lue sustained no damages beyond a prior settlement. The Appellate Division found unresolved factual issues regarding K-Mart's additional insured status and the enforceability of an indemnification clause, which precluded summary judgment for either party. The court therefore reversed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lue, denying his motion, and affirmed the order as modified.

Legal MalpracticeLabor Law § 240BankruptcySummary JudgmentIndemnification ClauseAdditional Insured StatusInsurance Law § 3420Appellate DivisionCausation of DamagesFactual Issues
References
18
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01317 [169 AD3d 555]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2019

Lobo v. Gatehouse Partners, LLC

Plaintiff Jose Lobo, a Connecticut resident, sought damages under the Labor Law for injuries from a scaffold fall at a renovation site in Westchester County. The action involved defendant Gatehouse Partners, LLC (general contractor) and third-party defendants, including Anatoliy Kovalskyy (subcontractor), all Connecticut residents. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, dismissed the action against Kovalskyy based on forum non conveniens. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that Kovalskyy failed to prove New York was an inconvenient forum. The court emphasized that New York's Labor Law protects workers in the state, the judicial burden was minimal, and Kovalskyy had not demonstrated hardship, having agreed to work in New York. The Appellate Division also confirmed Bronx County as a proper venue, given no party resided in New York when the action commenced, and no grounds for a discretionary change of venue were shown.

Forum Non ConveniensPersonal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law ClaimConstruction Site SafetyVenue ChangeAppellate ReviewThird-Party ActionJurisdictionInterstate Parties
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01560 [159 AD3d 480]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2018

Gomes v. Pearson Capital Partners LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting plaintiff Atley Gomes partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a December 24, 2012 accident. The court found that the scaffold lacked required safety features (railings, toe boards, cross-bracing, and tie-off points), establishing a statutory violation and proximate cause for plaintiff's fall. The court also affirmed the denial of defendants Pearson Capital Partners LLC and Congress Builders LLC's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, specifically with respect to Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-5.1 (j), citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the scaffold's height. Additionally, the court declined to consider the defendants' hearsay exception arguments as they were raised for the first time on appeal.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewHearsay ExceptionIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentPersonal InjuryWorker Safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2002

Andino v. BFC Partners, L.P.

The plaintiff, an employee of Holy Land Iron Works Corporation, sustained injuries after falling from a scaffold while installing window guards at a property owned by BFC Partners, L.P. and BFC Corp. The plaintiff sought summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was initially denied by the Supreme Court, Kings County, due to perceived factual disputes regarding proximate cause. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the defendants failed to provide adequate safety devices, constituting a violation of the Labor Law. The court also rejected the defendants' recalcitrant worker defense, concluding that the plaintiff's use of the scaffold was foreseeable and within the scope of employment. Consequently, summary judgment on liability was granted to the plaintiff.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction SafetyWorker FallWorkplace AccidentNondelegable Duty
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04461
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2025

Joya v. E 31 Partners, LLC

Naun Joya, an employee of Blue Stone Concrete Corp., was injured at a Brooklyn worksite when a plywood sheet struck his head while disassembling a fence. He filed suit against E 31 Partners, LLC and Twin Group Associates, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted Joya's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, denying Joya's motion. The appellate court found that Joya failed to present sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the accident was an elevation-related hazard or gravity-related risk encompassed by Labor Law § 240 (1), specifically lacking details on the height of the fall or the necessity of securing devices.

Labor LawSafe Place to WorkFalling ObjectPlywoodConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewElevation HazardGravity RiskTriable Issues of Fact
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 252 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