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
Jan 16, 2001

Procter & Gamble Co. v. Quality King Distributors, Inc.

Proctor & Gamble Company (P&G), a worldwide distributor of consumer products, sued numerous parties including Quality King Distributors, Inc., Omnisource International, Inc., and Neal Rose, alleging they were involved in mixing, bottling, selling, and distributing counterfeit Head & Shoulders shampoo, in violation of the Lanham Trade-Mark Act. P&G moved for summary judgment on the issue of liability for trademark infringement. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment, arguing P&G had unclean hands, abandoned its trademark rights, and that Neal Rose lacked individual liability. The court granted P&G's motion for summary judgment, finding that the defendants used a counterfeit of P&G's trademark in commerce, which created a likelihood of consumer confusion. The court denied the defendants' cross-motions, concluding that the unclean hands defense was inapplicable, P&G had not abandoned its trademark, and there was sufficient evidence for Rose's personal liability.

Trademark InfringementLanham ActCounterfeit GoodsSummary JudgmentUnclean Hands DefenseTrademark AbandonmentCorporate Officer LiabilityHead & ShouldersConsumer ConfusionInterstate Commerce
References
40
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06839 [165 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Mitchell v. Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc.

Claimant James Mitchell, a tractor truck driver, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries to his right hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder, identifying both Eaton's Trucking Service, Inc. (Eaton) and Quality Carrier's, Inc. (Quality) as his employers. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Eaton was Mitchell's general employer and Quality was his special employer, making both 50% liable for benefits. Quality appealed this decision, challenging the special employment finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Mitchell was a special employee of Quality, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and the nature of the work arrangement between Eaton and Quality.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTractor Truck DriverOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
7
Case No. 2017-2139 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2019

Quality Health Prod., Inc. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Quality Health Product, Inc., as an assignee, against American Transit Insurance Company regarding a no-fault benefits claim. The defendant successfully moved for a stay of the action, pending a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board concerning the applicability of workers' compensation benefits. The Civil Court granted this motion based on the potential that the plaintiff's assignor was injured during the course of employment. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board holds primary jurisdiction over such determinations. The court found sufficient evidence to warrant the Board's initial review of whether workers' compensation benefits were available.

No-fault benefitsWorkers' Compensation BoardPrimary JurisdictionStay of ActionAppellate ReviewInsurance DisputeCivil Court OrderAssignee RightsEmployment Injury
References
9
Case No. 2014-1081 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2016

High Quality Med. Supplies, Inc. v. Mercury Ins. Group

This case involves an appeal concerning assigned first-party no-fault benefits sought by High Quality Medical Supplies, Inc., as assignee of Charles Botwee. The defendant, Mercury Ins. Group, appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. Mercury Ins. Group contended that billing for durable medical equipment not listed in a fee schedule is not compensable. However, the Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, citing 11 NYCRR 68.5, which specifically permits reimbursement for healthcare services not explicitly covered by fee schedules, thereby rejecting the defendant's argument.

No-Fault BenefitsFirst-Party BenefitsDurable Medical EquipmentFee ScheduleSummary JudgmentAppellate TermAssigned BenefitsInsurance LawReimbursementCivil Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. v. Pross

This case concerns a breach of contract action for swimming pool construction. The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that one of the plaintiff corporations, Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., lacked the required Nassau County home improvement license. Plaintiffs, Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. and Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., both owned by Jairo Arango, operated together, with Best Quality holding the necessary license. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that denying payment would be an excessive penalty given that Best Quality was licensed, aligning with the rationale of Marraccini v Ryan. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint to include the licensing details for Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc.

Home Improvement LicenseCorporate LiabilityBreach of ContractMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintNassau County Administrative CodeCPLR 3015(e)Licensing RequirementsCorporate VeilSubstantial Compliance
References
8
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00372 [168 AD3d 536]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2019

Malik v. Style Mgt. Co. Inc.

Plaintiff Karam Malik sustained personal injuries after slipping on ice on a roadway between two buildings. The ice allegedly formed from water discharged from a hose attached to a building owned by 514 West 44th Street, Inc., and used by Style Management Co., Inc., a taxi company operating from the same building. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to 514 West 44th Street, Inc., but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Appellate Division found that 514 West failed to establish its entitlement to summary judgment as it did not conclusively prove it was an out-of-possession landlord, and genuine issues of fact existed regarding its potential liability for creating the dangerous condition given its close connection with Style Management Co., Inc.

Slip and FallIce AccumulationPremises LiabilityLandowner DutySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReversalCorporate Alter EgoProximate CauseDangerous ConditionPublic Sidewalk Liability
References
8
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06975
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2021

WDF Inc. v. Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted plaintiff WDF Inc.'s motion for partial summary judgment on its breach of contract claim against Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc. WDF Inc. successfully demonstrated that Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc. breached their subcontract by failing to provide sufficient workers for the project. The court found Vamco Sheet Metals, Inc.'s arguments unavailing. Fidelity and Deposit Company Maryland was involved as a third-party defendant in the proceedings.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentSubcontract DisputeAppellate ReviewFailure to PerformJudicial AffirmationContract LawThird-Party ActionConstruction LawNew York Law
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 10,408 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