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
Jun 15, 2011

Annicaro v. Corporate Suites, Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Millenium Contracting Services Corp., was injured while cleaning debris from a staircase at a commercial building owned by 757 3rd Avenue Associates, LLC, managed by RFR Realty, LLC, and leased by Corporate Suites 757, LLC. He allegedly stepped on a threaded metal rod, lost his balance, and fell, sustaining personal injuries. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the causes of action. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the hazard was inherent to the plaintiff's work for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and that the plaintiff failed to establish a violation of a specific Industrial Code provision or causation for Labor Law § 241 (6).

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Safe Place to WorkDebris HazardStaircase Fall
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04852 [208 AD3d 1012]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Vandee v. Suit-Kote Corp.

This case involves a class action brought by employees (plaintiffs) against Suit-Kote Corporation (defendant) for allegedly failing to pay prevailing supplemental benefits on public works contracts. The core dispute is whether the defendant’s practice of depositing the shortfall in benefits into a pooled ERISA trust, which also covers non-prevailing wage workers, satisfies the requirements of Labor Law § 220. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the lower court's decision, ruling in favor of the plaintiffs. The court concluded that the payment into the pooled trust, when diluted by benefits for non-prevailing wage workers, does not fulfill the statutory obligation, emphasizing that individual prevailing wage workers must receive the full value of their supplemental benefits. Consequently, the breach of contract cause of action was reinstated.

Prevailing WageSupplemental BenefitsLabor Law § 220Public Works ContractsBreach of ContractERISA PlanPooled TrustClass ActionSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

This case involves an action initially brought in state court by Billy Jack for Her, Inc., an apparel jobber, against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers’ Union. Billy Jack alleged tortious interference with contractual relations due to the Union's picketing aimed at securing a 'Hazantown agreement.' The Union removed the case to federal court. The court denied Billy Jack's motion to remand, ruling that the state law claim was preempted by federal labor law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. The Union's motion to modify a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the order had already expired.

Labor disputeFederal preemptionTortious interference with contractPicketingHazantown agreementNational Labor Relations ActNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(B)NLRA Section 8(b)(7)(A)Removal jurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 1981

Blyer v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

The National Labor Relations Board sought a preliminary injunction against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear, and Allied Workers’ Union, International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union (ILG) for alleged unfair labor practices under NLRA Section 8(b)(4)(D), related to picketing for a jobber’s agreement. The court examined the applicability of the garment-industry proviso in NLRA Section 8(e) to the alleged work-assignment dispute. It found that the Board's theory was novel and lacked sufficient factual findings. Considering factors like the ILG's initial lawful picketing, the employer's non-innocent status, and the desire to preserve the status quo, the court denied the injunction, concluding it would be inequitable and improper.

Labor LawUnfair Labor PracticePreliminary InjunctionNLRAGarment Industry ProvisoWork Assignment DisputeJobber's AgreementPicketingSecondary BoycottGarment Union
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00383
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2020

U-Trend N.Y. Inv. L.P. v. US Suite LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a judgment awarding mortgage damages to U-Trend New York Investment L.P. against US Suite LLC and Aura Investments Ltd. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's judgment by reducing the principal amount of mortgage damages awarded to U-Trend, stating that interest should be calculated at 13.5% instead of 20%. The court affirmed the judgment in other respects, including the limitation of Aura's liability for looting damages and the denial of sale damages and attorneys' fees. An appeal from a separate order denying Aura's motion to correct or vacate the judgment was dismissed as academic. The court addressed various arguments from Aura regarding liability, causation, and damages calculations, ultimately upholding liability for breach of contract but adjusting the damages amount based on the proper interest rate.

Mortgage DamagesBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyLooting DamagesInterest Rate CalculationAppellate ReviewBusiness Judgment RuleJudicial AdmissionsDerivative ClaimsAttorneys' Fees
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

R.M. Perlman Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dresses, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union Local 89-22-1

This case involves R.M. Perlman, d/b/a Rebecca Moses Collection (RMC), a garment industry employer, suing two labor unions, Local 89-22-1 and the International Ladies Garment Workers’ Union. The suit stemmed from picketing aimed at compelling RMC to enter into a Hazantown Agreement, which RMC alleged involved violence and caused substantial losses. The amended complaint included federal claims under the National Labor Relations Act and state law claims such as prima facie tort, intentional interference with contractual relations, and defamation. The defendants moved to dismiss the state law claims, arguing federal preemption and RMC's failure to meet New York's specific pleading requirements for actions against unincorporated associations. The court found the state law claims were not preempted due to allegations of violent picketing, aligning with exceptions to federal preemption. However, the court ultimately granted the dismissal of the state law claims (counts two through seven) because RMC failed to allege that every single union member authorized or ratified the violent acts, as required by the New York Court of Appeals decision in Martin v. Curran. Additionally, the individual defendants Byer and Mazur were dismissed because the remaining federal claim under the Labor-Management Relations Act does not allow for individual liability. A motion to dismiss Rebecca Moses as a plaintiff was denied, pending further evidence on her standing. Plaintiffs were granted thirty days to replead the dismissed state law claims.

Labor LawFederal PreemptionState Law ClaimsUnincorporated AssociationsUnion LiabilityViolent PicketingHazantown AgreementMotion to DismissNational Labor Relations ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Industrial Accident Board v. Texas Workmen's Compensation Assigned Risk Pool

Appellee, The Texas Workmen’s Compensation Assigned Risk Pool, initiated a declaratory judgment suit against the Industrial Accident Board in Travis County district court. The suit sought a judicial interpretation of "legal entity" in Vernon's Tex.Rev.Civ. Stat.Ann., Art. 8308, § 18a, specifically whether it includes assumed names of workmen's compensation insureds. The district court ruled for the appellee, determining that an assumed name is not a "legal entity" under the statute. Appellant challenged this, raising issues of appellee's capacity to sue and justiciable interest, along with the substantive interpretation of "legal entity." The appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment, confirming that appellee had standing and that an assumed name does not constitute a legal entity for the purpose of the statute's filing fee.

Workers' CompensationAssigned Risk PoolDeclaratory JudgmentLegal EntityAssumed NamesStatutory ConstructionCapacity to SueJusticiable InterestIndustrial Accident BoardInsurance Carriers
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Simmons v. University of Texas System

Robert Simmons, Sr. and Erma Jean Simmons appealed a district court's summary judgment in favor of The University of Texas System in a worker's compensation suit. Their son, Robert Simmons, Jr., originally filed the suit for a general injury but died from unrelated causes during its pendency. His parents were substituted as plaintiffs, seeking accrued and unpaid worker's compensation benefits from the date of his injury to his death. The University of Texas System argued the claim did not survive Simmons' death, relying on *Carswell v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Co.* The appellate court distinguished *Carswell* by emphasizing that claims for accrued and unpaid benefits do survive, citing *Bailey v. Traveler’s Ins. Co.* The court found UT System failed to establish that all accrued benefits had been paid, thus rendering the summary judgment improper. The judgment of the district court was reversed and the cause remanded for trial.

General InjuryAccrued BenefitsUnpaid BenefitsSurvival of ClaimSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewDeath of EmployeeTexas LawReversalRemand
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grota v. Holcombe

E. F. Grota, a warrant officer for the Corporation Court of the City of Houston, was dismissed from his position by the City Secretary, acting under the authority of Mayor Holcombe. Grota alleged his dismissal, purportedly for economic reasons, was actually politically motivated due to his vote against the mayor. He filed a suit seeking a writ of mandamus to compel the Civil Service Commission to grant him a hearing for reinstatement, an injunction against Mayor Holcombe to prevent interference, and a money judgment against the City of Houston for lost salary. The trial court sustained a general demurrer and special exceptions, dismissing Grota's suit. The appellate court, relying on a prior precedent (Ellis v. Holcombe et al.), reversed the trial court's decision, holding that Grota was entitled to a hearing by the Civil Service Commission and, if wrongfully dismissed, reinstatement and recovery of back salary.

Civil ServiceMandamusInjunctionWrongful DismissalPolice ServiceMunicipal GovernmentDue ProcessReinstatementBack PayGeneral Demurrer
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,967 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