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

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Big Apple Supermarkets, Inc. v. Dutto

This case involves a supermarket chain (plaintiff) that initially filed a complaint in the Supreme Court of the State of New York, Kings County, seeking an injunction and damages against labor unions (defendants). The plaintiff alleged that the unions were picketing its supermarkets, attempting to discourage customers from buying products from 'Gourmet' (producers of snack products) due to alleged substandard wages, even though the unions did not represent the plaintiff's or Gourmet's employees. The defendants subsequently removed the action to federal court, contending that the complaint implicitly alleged a violation of Section 8(b)(4) of the Labor Management Relations Act, specifically a 'secondary boycott', thereby establishing federal jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Act. The federal court examined whether the complaint described conduct falling within the prohibition of Section 8(b)(4), particularly requiring a primary dispute between an employer and a union. The court concluded that the complaint did not indicate any primary dispute, nor did the consumer product picketing described, even if a primary dispute existed, constitute a prohibited secondary boycott under established Supreme Court precedent. Consequently, the defendants failed to prove federal jurisdiction, and the motion to remand the case back to the State court was granted.

Labor LawSecondary BoycottFederal JurisdictionMotion to RemandLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActNorris-LaGuardia ActConsumer PicketingUnfair Labor PracticeState Court Jurisdiction
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between A.F.C.O. Metals, Inc. & Local Union 580 of International Ass'n of Bridge

This case concerns a dispute between Local Union 580 and AFCO Metals, Inc. regarding arbitration of pension fund contributions. Local 580 claimed AFCO underpaid contributions by assigning work to Carpenters Unions that should have been allocated to Local 580 members. AFCO sought to stay arbitration, arguing the dispute was jurisdictional and excluded from arbitration under their collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court initially dismissed AFCO's petition, but the Appellate Division reversed, finding the dispute jurisdictional. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's order, ruling that the underlying dispute is a jurisdictional matter, which the parties explicitly agreed to exclude from arbitration provisions in their collective bargaining agreement.

ArbitrationJurisdictional DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsUnion ContributionsWork AssignmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawContract InterpretationFund Delinquency
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Leather Workers' Union of the United States

The case involves an appeal by an employer against a Special Term order compelling arbitration of disputes with a petitioner (union) following the expiration of a collective bargaining agreement. Disputes originated in January 1947 over roller wages, leading to a work stoppage in March that was settled by an agreement to arbitrate. A second dispute arose over the discharge of three employees, also demanded for arbitration. After the contract expired on June 1, 1947, the employer contended its obligation to arbitrate ceased. The Special Term ruled that the duty to arbitrate disputes arising during the contract term survived its expiration. The Appellate Division affirmed this order, specifying that arbitration should be limited to grievances pending before the contract's expiry on May 31, 1947.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWage DisputeWork StoppageEmployee DischargeContract ExpirationArbitrabilityAppellate ReviewLabor LawPanel Decision
References
6
Case No. ADJ8677592
Regular
Aug 27, 2018

LINDA DAVIES vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES USA, INC.

This case involves a dispute over reimbursement for medical-legal expenses incurred by a lien claimant, Dr. Kauss, who was designated as the applicant's primary treating physician. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded the initial award, finding that the WCJ erred in determining the compensability of Dr. Kauss's reports. The WCAB remanded the case for further proceedings to evaluate compliance with specific statutory requirements regarding objections to medical-legal bills and the distinction between IBR and non-IBR disputes. A dissenting opinion argued Dr. Kauss did not fulfill the duties of a primary treating physician and should not be reimbursed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationMedical-Legal ExpensesPrimary Treating PhysicianLabor Code Section 4060Labor Code Section 4061Lien ClaimantIndependent Bill ReviewExplanation of ReviewDefense Attorney
References
3
Case No. 17344/67
Regular Panel Decision

J. Landowne Co. v. Paper Box Makers & Paper Specialties Union, Local 299

Plaintiffs initiated a lawsuit in New York State Supreme Court against defendant unions, alleging violence, malicious destruction, and mass picketing during a labor dispute, seeking an injunction and damages. The case was removed to the federal Eastern District of New York, with jurisdiction asserted under Section 303 of the Labor-Management Relations Act. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that the federal court lacked jurisdiction as their complaint focused solely on primary activities at their plant and did not allege a secondary boycott, which is required for federal jurisdiction under Section 303. The federal court concurred, finding no basis for federal jurisdiction over the primary dispute, and granted the motion to remand.

Labor DisputeInjunctionDamagesCase RemovalRemand MotionFederal JurisdictionState JurisdictionSecondary BoycottUnfair Labor PracticeMass Picketing
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pecker Iron Works of New York, Inc. v. Traveler's Insurance

This case involves a dispute between Pecker Iron Works and Travelers Indemnity Company of Connecticut concerning the primary versus excess coverage obligations of two liability insurance carriers. Pecker, designated as an 'additional insured' under Upfront Enterprises' policy with Travelers, sought primary coverage after an Upfront worker was injured on a construction site. Travelers contended its policy provided only excess coverage for additional insureds unless explicitly designated as primary in a written contract. The Supreme Court initially agreed with Travelers, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that coverage for additional insureds is presumed primary unless unambiguously stated otherwise. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Pecker was entitled to primary coverage.

Insurance CoverageAdditional InsuredPrimary CoverageExcess CoverageSubcontractor AgreementDeclaratory JudgmentContract InterpretationLiability InsuranceConstruction ProjectAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rubery v. Buth-Na-Bodhaige, Inc.

Yvette Rubery, a former manager at The Body Shop, initiated a collective action alleging misclassification as an "exempt" employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, seeking unpaid overtime wages. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Rubery met the executive exemption criteria, while Rubery cross-moved for partial summary judgment, contesting her primary duties were managerial and disputing the number of employees she supervised. The court denied both summary judgment motions, citing the presence of material factual disputes concerning Rubery's primary job responsibilities and the actual hours of subordinate supervision. Additionally, the court addressed the interpretation of "customary and regular" supervision and the inclusion of non-working hours in supervision calculations, deferring final rulings on these issues for factual determination. The defendant's motion to strike certain evidence submitted by the plaintiff was granted.

FLSAOvertime PayExecutive ExemptionEmployee MisclassificationSummary JudgmentPrimary Duty TestManagerial ResponsibilitiesSubordinate SupervisionNew York Labor LawFederal Rules of Evidence
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Liability Ins. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co.

This diversity action involves an insurance dispute between plaintiffs United States Liability Insurance Co. (U.S. Liability) and Mobile Air Transport, Inc., and defendant Mountain Valley Indemnity Co. The conflict arose from a fatal truck accident involving a Mobile Air employee driving a truck leased from Leroy Holding Company, Inc. After an underlying personal injury action settled, U.S. Liability and Mountain Valley each paid $225,000 towards the remaining $450,000 portion of the settlement. The core disagreement is whether the Truck Lease Agreement, which designates Mobile Air's insurance as primary, or the specific 'other insurance' clauses within U.S. Liability's and Mountain Valley's respective policies, which would make Mountain Valley's coverage primary, should govern. Applying New York law, the court ruled that the insurance policy provisions take precedence over the lease agreement. Consequently, U.S. Liability's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Mountain Valley's cross-motion was denied, holding Mountain Valley liable for the entire $450,000 in dispute.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs Excess CoverageTruck Lease AgreementInsurance Policy InterpretationSummary JudgmentNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionIndemnificationSubrogationAutomobile Accident
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 5,560 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