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. 15 Civ. 7543 (NSR)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2017

Safe Step Walk in Tub Co. v. CKH Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Safe Step Walk In Tub Co. sued Defendant CKH Industries, Inc. for non-payment of marketing fees. CKH counter-claimed, alleging violations of franchise laws, breach of agreements, unfair business practices, and fraud. Safe Step moved to dismiss CKH’s counter-claims. The court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It determined that the relationship between the parties could plausibly constitute a franchisor-franchisee relationship under the FTC Rule and various state laws, allowing certain counter-claims to proceed. However, claims under New York and Rhode Island's "Little FTC" Acts, breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, and unfair competition were dismissed. The court also held that Tennessee law governs the contract disputes, while state franchise laws apply where Defendant's franchises are located. Additionally, the court found that oral modifications and part performance could sustain certain contract claims despite written-only modification clauses.

Franchise LawBreach of ContractUnfair CompetitionFraudMotion to DismissChoice of LawFederal Trade Commission ActState Franchise ActsPromissory EstoppelUnjust Enrichment
References
87
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 1975

Suffolk Educational Chapter v. Board of Education

This case involves a petitioner's challenge to a respondent's determination to reclassify six school matrons to custodial workers, placing them at a lower salary step. Previously at Step 7 as school matrons, they were moved to Step 2 of the custodial worker classification, resulting in a smaller salary increase than if they had maintained their original step. The petitioner alleged sex-based discrimination, arguing the matrons were entitled to their original step in the new classification. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed the judgment, reinstated the petition, and remitted the proceeding for a hearing to determine the relationship between the duties of school matrons and custodial workers, which is critical for adjudicating the sex-biased discrimination claim.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment ReclassificationSalary DisputeCustodial WorkerSchool MatronRemandAppellate ReviewCivil ServantSuffolk County Supreme Court
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bretts v. Lincoln Plaza Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Johnny's Pizza and Lincoln Plaza Associates, Inc., from an order denying their motions for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The injured plaintiff allegedly tripped over a single-step riser on premises owned by Lincoln Plaza Associates and leased by Johnny's Pizza. The defendants contended the step was an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition. The Supreme Court initially denied their motions, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding that they successfully established the step was open and obvious and not inherently dangerous, and the plaintiff failed to present sufficient evidence to create a triable issue of fact.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOpen and Obvious ConditionNegligenceSlip and FallAppellate ReviewLandowner DutyHazardous ConditionDuty to Warn
References
7
Case No. 202 AD3d 1185
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2022

Podhurst v. Village of Monticello

Cayla Podhurst slipped on ice on public steps near a synagogue, suffering an ankle injury. Although the steps were public, the Landfield Avenue Synagogue Jewish General Aid Society exclusively maintained them. Podhurst sued the synagogue for negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied summary judgment on the snow removal claim but prohibited a 'special use' theory of liability. After a jury found the synagogue negligent, the Supreme Court set aside the verdict. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that the Supreme Court erred in precluding the special use theory. The court noted evidence suggesting the synagogue rebuilt and specifically benefited from the steps, warranting a new trial to consider this theory of liability.

NegligenceSlip and FallPremises LiabilityAbutting LandownerSpecial Use DoctrineSnow and Ice RemovalSummary JudgmentVerdict Set AsideAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. New York State Department of Labor

This case addresses a challenge to respondent's determination concerning prevailing wage schedules for telecommunication workers in New York. The respondent had merged voice and data telecommunications work into a single "telecommunication worker" category and adopted a multi-tiered step rate wage schedule, asserting progression was based solely on longevity. Petitioners, including Local 363 of the IBEW, argued that this schedule was flawed as progression through step rates was contingent on skill mastery and training, effectively making lower-tier workers trainees. The court, citing Labor Law § 220 (3), found evidence supporting the petitioners' claim that advancement required acquired skills, not just time. Consequently, the court reversed the lower court's judgment, annulled the respondent's determination, and granted the petition, concluding that adopting the full step rate schedule was arbitrary and capricious.

Wage disputeTelecommunication workersPrevailing wage lawLabor Law § 220Step rate wage scheduleApprenticeship programSkill-based progressionLongevity-based payJudicial reviewArticle 78 proceeding
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2006

Claim of Laing v. Maryhaven Center of Hope

The claimant, injured in 2001, was found to have a permanent partial disability and applied for workers' compensation benefits. The employer disputed her continued inability to work, contending she voluntarily withdrew from the labor market. The Workers’ Compensation Board denied further benefits, finding the claimant failed to seek suitable employment. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the claimant voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, despite her assertion of persistent pain, as medical experts uniformly opined she was capable of sedentary work. The court also rejected the claimant's argument that the Board erred by not applying a three-step analysis, as her withdrawal was found to be voluntary at the initial step.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary WithdrawalLabor Market AttachmentPermanent Partial DisabilitySuitable EmploymentMedical Expert TestimonyCredibility DeterminationBoard DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motise v. America Online, Inc.

Michael V. Motise initiated this action against America Online, Inc. in March 2004, alleging unlawful disclosure of his screen name. America Online moved to dismiss or transfer the case, citing a forum selection clause in its Member Agreement mandating disputes be heard in Virginia. The court examined whether Motise, as a user accessing his step-father's account, was bound by the clause despite lacking direct notice. The court affirmed the enforceability of the forum selection clause through a 'derivative rights theory,' establishing that Motise's access was contingent on his step-father's acceptance of the terms. Consequently, the case was ordered to be transferred to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia.

Forum selection clauseDerivative rightsConstructive noticeTerms of serviceTransfer of venueFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureInternet lawUser agreementContract enforceabilityJurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morrison v. Hoberman

Petitioners and intervenors-petitioners appealed a judgment dismissing their petitions for reclassification from the title of Oiler to Oiler (Portable). The Civil Service Commission had amended the Oiler classification in 1964, creating Oiler (Portable) with a higher wage rate. Petitioners, employed by the City of New York, sought similar reclassification after Oilers in the Department of Sanitation were reclassified, but their demand was refused. After a trial court found a rational basis for the refusal, this court reversed that decision. The court found no rational basis for the distinction, determining that the duties, qualifications, and tools used by all Oilers were essentially the same, and the wage differential was based on private industry distinctions not applicable to city employment. The judgment appealed from was reversed, vacated, and the petitioners were granted the relief demanded.

ReclassificationOilerOiler (Portable)Oiler (Stationary)Civil ServiceWage DifferentialEmployment DutiesRational BasisAppellate ReviewJob Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lombardo v. Park Tower Management Ltd.

Plaintiff, a metal trade journeyman, was injured when a step on a three-step staircase broke as he descended into a pit. He sought partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court initially denied his motion, and this appellate court subsequently modified that decision. The appellate court granted summary judgment to the defendant, dismissing the plaintiff's claim. The majority reasoned that the staircase was a permanent fixture, not a safety device, and the 18-inch fall was not an "elevation-related risk" covered by the statute. A dissenting opinion argued that the permanency of the staircase, the plaintiff's work location, and the modest height differential were irrelevant, asserting that the injury directly resulted from gravity, thus falling under Labor Law § 240 (1) protection.

Labor LawSection 240 (1)Summary JudgmentElevation-Related RiskPermanent StructureSafety DeviceGravityAppellate DecisionNew York LawStaircase Accident
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 214 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