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

Holick v. Cellular Sales of New York, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of Sales Representatives, initiated an action against defendants Cellular Sales of Knoxville, Inc. and Cellular Sales of New York, L.L.C., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York State Labor Law. They claimed misclassification as independent contractors, which led to a deprivation of guaranteed compensation, including minimum wage and overtime. Defendants responded with motions to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and personal jurisdiction, and alternatively, to compel mediation/arbitration based on clauses in the sales agreements. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, affirming its power to adjudicate FLSA claims. However, it granted the defendants' motion to compel arbitration, determining that the mediation clauses were valid, unwaived, and that FLSA claims are arbitrable under federal law, leading to the dismissal of the complaint without prejudice. All other pending motions, including plaintiffs' request for conditional collective action certification, were subsequently denied as moot.

FLSALabor LawMisclassificationIndependent ContractorCollective ActionArbitrationMediationSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(1)
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doynow Sales Associates, Inc. v. Rocheux International of New Jersey, Inc.

Plaintiff Doynow Sales Associates, Inc. (DSA) brought an action against Rocheux International of New Jersey, Inc., alleging breach of contract for reducing DSA's sales commissions on two large accounts, Swimline and Latham, and for converting these into 'house accounts.' Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. DSA argued that the Sales Representative Agreement did not permit Rocheux to unilaterally alter commission rates or remove accounts. Rocheux contended it had the right to establish sales policies and that commission rates were subject to mutual agreement and account profitability, evidenced by DSA's past conduct. The court found the terms of the Agreement regarding 'necessity' for commission reductions and the ability to remove accounts to be ambiguous. Due to this ambiguity and conflicting extrinsic evidence regarding the parties' intent and subsequent conduct, the court concluded that genuine issues of material fact existed. Consequently, both parties' summary judgment motions were denied, and the case is to proceed to trial.

Contract LawSales CommissionBreach of ContractSummary Judgment MotionContract InterpretationSales Representative AgreementAccount ReassignmentMutual AgreementCourse of PerformanceExtrinsic Evidence
References
92
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1993

Abreu v. Manhattan Plaza Associates

Antonio Abreu sustained personal injuries when a heavy electrical transformer fell on his hand while he was removing a shipping pallet. He and his wife initiated an action against Manhattan Plaza Associates, the building owner, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Although the jury found Manhattan Plaza not negligent, it found violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), leading to a judgment in favor of the plaintiffs based on absolute liability. Manhattan Plaza Associates appealed, arguing that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the object fell from a "miniscule height," and plaintiffs failed to allege a specific "concrete" Industrial Code provision for Labor Law § 241 (6). The appellate court concurred, modifying the judgment to dismiss the complaint against Manhattan Plaza Associates.

Personal InjuryLabor LawAbsolute LiabilityElevated WorksiteIndustrial CodeConstruction WorkAppellate DecisionJury VerdictDamagesNegligence
References
7
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00956
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2017

Cacanoski v. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC

The plaintiff, Krste Cacanoski, was injured after falling through a skylight during asbestos removal work for 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC. He commenced an action against 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. 35 Cedar Place Associates, LLC, subsequently initiated a third-party action against Cacanoski's employer, Superior Abatement, Inc., seeking contractual indemnification under a subcontract executed after the accident. The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law claim and Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order with respect to the plaintiff's motion, granting summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, finding that the absence of necessary protection was a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries. The court affirmed the denial of Superior Abatement, Inc.'s motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding that a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the parties intended the indemnification provision to apply retroactively.

Labor Law § 240(1)Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAsbestos RemovalFall from heightSky-lightContractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Appellate Division
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Basketball Ass'n v. Design Management Consultants, Inc.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) and NBA Properties, Inc. (plaintiffs) initiated a civil contempt motion against Designer Management Consultants, Inc. (DMC) and Delroy Allen (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated a Preliminary Injunction on Consent, issued on August 11, 2003, by continuing to sell 'Disputed Merchandise' bearing NBA trademarks and failing to provide a complete accounting of these sales. The court found clear and convincing evidence of non-compliance regarding merchandise sales and accounting documentation. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for civil contempt was granted, with sanctions including a $2,500 daily fine for continued non-compliance after October 15, 2003, and an entitlement to net profits from the unlawful sales, to be determined later.

Trademark InfringementCivil ContemptPreliminary InjunctionTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionDeceptive ActsBrand ProtectionIntellectual PropertySanctionsCompliance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soundview Associates v. Town of Riverhead

Sound-view Associates filed a lawsuit against the Town of Riverhead and other defendants, alleging violations of its First, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. The plaintiff claimed arbitrary denial of a special permit to construct a health spa, despite a pre-existing 1982 permit, and that defendants unlawfully coerced them into withdrawing a state court appeal by threatening to withhold approval for a separate clubhouse application from their tenant. The court partially granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, specifically dismissing claims brought under the Fifth Amendment and those against the Town Board and Planning Department as duplicative. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the substantive due process, procedural due process, and First Amendment retaliation claims, finding that Sound-view Associates had sufficiently alleged a valid property interest, arbitrary infringement, and a chilled exercise of First Amendment rights. The motion to dismiss individual defendants Richard Ehlers and Dawn C. Thomas was also denied due to their alleged personal involvement in the unconstitutional actions.

Zoning disputeLand useSpecial permitHealth spaFirst AmendmentDue Process42 U.S.C. § 1983RetaliationCoercionProperty rights
References
95
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 1994

Lemma v. Forest City Pierrepont Associates

Plaintiff Michael Lemma instituted an action, joined by his wife for loss of consortium, to recover damages for Labor Law violations after he sustained injuries on May 19, 1987, when struck by a falling piece of steel at a construction site. Third-party defendants A.C. Associates, plaintiff's employer, and Steel Structures Corporation, performing structural steel work, were impleaded by the property owners and general contractor. A jury initially apportioned liability 80% to A.C. Associates and 20% to Steel Structures Corporation. The Supreme Court modified the judgment, finding the apportionment against the weight of the evidence and directing a new trial on liability unless the third-party defendants consent to a 50% each apportionment, based on Steel Structures Corporation's responsibilities for safety decking and its employee's negligence. The court also affirmed the judgment in all other respects.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentFalling ObjectApportionment of LiabilityThird-Party ActionJury Verdict ReviewAppellate DivisionNegligenceWorkplace SafetyNew Trial Conditional
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diaz v. Rosbrock Associates Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Eduardo Londono Diaz, an employee of New Rochelle Hotel Association (NRHA), sustained injuries while working at the Ramada Plaza Hotel. He commenced an action against Rosbrock Associated Limited Partnership (Rosbrock), the landowner, alleging violations of the Labor Law. Rosbrock, which leased the land to NRHA, moved for summary judgment, arguing that NRHA and Rosbrock were effectively the same entity for Workers' Compensation Law purposes due to identical general and limited partners, thus precluding a lawsuit against the landowner under exclusive remedy provisions. The court granted Rosbrock's motion for summary judgment, finding that despite being separately maintained for tax and legal compliance, the identical partnership makeup rendered them a single entity for workers' compensation, thereby dismissing Diaz's action.

Limited Partnership LiabilityExclusive Remedy DoctrineIdentity of EntitiesLandowner Employer StatusSummary Judgment GrantLabor Law ViolationsPartnership LawStatutory DutyWorkplace Injury ClaimBoiler Maintenance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,545 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