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
Sep 11, 2009

George v. IBC Sales Corp.

The defendant IBC Sales Corporation appealed an order denying its cross-motion for summary judgment in a wrongful death action. The decedent, an employee of Interstate Brands Corporation (Brands), was killed at a bakery thrift store owned by IBC Sales, a subsidiary of Brands. The plaintiff, the decedent’s wife, filed a workers' compensation claim, which found a work-related death, and then sued IBC Sales. IBC Sales argued that workers’ compensation was the exclusive remedy, claiming it was an alter ego of Brands or the decedent's special employer. The Supreme Court denied IBC Sales’s cross-motion, finding questions of fact regarding the alter ego status and special employment relationship. The appellate court affirmed, agreeing that IBC Sales failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Wrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAlter EgoSpecial EmployeeParent SubsidiaryCorporate VeilAppellate ReviewNew York StateNassau County
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04235 [185 AD3d 515]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale v. City of New York

This case concerns a challenge to the City of New York's rezoning plan for the Inwood neighborhood of Manhattan. Petitioners, including Northern Manhattan Is Not for Sale, sought to annul the City Council's resolutions, arguing that the environmental reviews under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) were inadequate. The Supreme Court initially sided with the petitioners, granting their request to annul the rezoning plan. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the City's environmental review process was lawful and that it took the requisite 'hard look' at potential environmental impacts. The Appellate Division concluded that the City's decision was not arbitrary, capricious, or unsupported by evidence, thereby denying the petition and dismissing the CPLR article 78 proceeding.

Environmental LawRezoningSEQRACEQRArticle 78 ProceedingAppellate ReviewLand UseUrban PlanningAffordable HousingInwood Neighborhood
References
16
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03615
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2025

Breslin v. Access Auto Sales & Serv., LLC

Matthew M. Breslin, a cable technician, was injured after falling from an extension ladder while installing new cable service. He and his wife filed an action alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence against Access Auto Sales, Spectrum, and National Grid entities. The Supreme Court denied all parties' motions for summary judgment, citing numerous questions of fact. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to defendants for claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and dismissing Access Auto's cross-claims for indemnification/contribution, finding no evidence of their negligence or supervisory control. However, the denials of summary judgment for Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims were affirmed, as factual disputes remained regarding the adequacy of safety equipment and the proximate cause of the accident.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)Labor Law Section 200Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentLadder accidentElevation-related hazardConstruction workProximate causeIndemnification
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Portrait Corp. of America, Inc.

Portrait Corporation of America, Inc. (PCA), and its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During these proceedings, PCA sold substantially all its assets, including the "PICTUREME!" trademark, to CPI Corp. ("CPI") free and clear of interests under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f). Subsequently, Picture Me Press, LLC ("PMP") filed a trademark infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging infringement of its "PICTURE ME" trademark. CPI then moved in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Sale Order and enjoin PMP's Ohio action, arguing that PMP's interest was extinguished by the free and clear sale. PMP contended its claims were not "interests" under 363(f) or that it lacked proper notice. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Robert D. Drain, determined that a trademark infringement claim could be an "interest" under 363(f) but decided to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The court cited significant factual overlap between the motion to enforce the sale order and the pending Ohio action, involving issues of trademark ownership, effective notice to PMP, and post-sale use of the mark. The court also noted that the dispute was between non-debtors and had no financial impact on the debtors' estates, suggesting a risk of forum shopping, thus favoring abstention.

Bankruptcy LawSection 363(f)Trademark InfringementAbstentionSale Order EnforcementFederal JurisdictionDue ProcessChapter 11Creditors' RightsInter-court Conflict
References
25
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

Claim of Moore v. Wassaic Sales

The claimant appealed a Workmen's Compensation Board decision which found she was a domestic worker and not an employee of Wassaic Sales. She was hired by Mr. and Mrs. William P. Smith as a substitute for their regular housekeeper and for convalescent cases. Although she occasionally took messages and assisted Wassaic Sales customers, the Board determined her primary role was domestic work for the Smiths. The appellate court affirmed the Board's factual finding that she was a domestic, noting that the timing of her placement on Wassaic Sales' payroll after the accident was a matter of credibility for the Board. The decision was unanimously affirmed, without costs.

Workers' CompensationDomestic WorkerEmployee StatusEmployer-Employee RelationshipFactual FindingAppellate ReviewWorkmen’s Compensation BoardCredibility DeterminationHousekeeperSubstitute Employee
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfonso v. Pacific Classon Realty, LLC

The plaintiff was injured while employed by D.S. Imports on premises leased by Delmar Sales, Inc. and purchased by Pacific Classen Realty, LLC the day after the accident. The appellate court found that the motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Pacific Classen Realty, LLC should have been granted because PCR did not own the premises at the time of the accident. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales, Inc., ruling that it failed to prove the plaintiff was a special employee or that it was an alter ego of D.S. Imports. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Delmar Sales regarding Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, as it failed to establish it was not an owner or agent.

Summary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawPremises LiabilitySpecial Employee DoctrineOwner LiabilityAppellate DecisionReal Estate OwnershipLessor LiabilityLessee Liability
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. v. H.O. Penn MacHinery Co.

Arthur Glick Truck Sales, Inc. (Truck Sales) initiated a lawsuit in state court against H.O. Penn Machinery Co. and Caterpillar, Inc., asserting several claims, including one under the Federal Automobile Dealers’ Day in Court Act. The case was subsequently removed to federal court by H.O. Penn, and both defendants filed motions to dismiss. Truck Sales later withdrew its federal claim and moved for the case to be remanded to state court. The District Court, after considering principles of supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and relevant precedents like United Mine Workers v. Gibbs and Valencia v. Sung M. Lee, decided to decline supplemental jurisdiction. Given the prompt withdrawal of the sole federal claim, the court determined that remanding the case to the New York State Supreme Court was appropriate in the interest of comity and judicial economy.

Federal Question JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionRemandFederal Automobile Dealers' Day in Court ActContract DisputeState Law ClaimsJudicial EconomyComityWithdrawal of Federal ClaimMotion to Dismiss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 493 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