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
Apr 07, 1993

Pennisi v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co.

A longshoreman, having received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, International Terminal Operating Company (ITO), initiated a personal injury action against Standard Fruit & Steamship Company and Netumar Lines. Standard Fruit and Netumar subsequently filed a third-party complaint against ITO for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted ITO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating Standard Fruit's indemnification claim against ITO due to unresolved factual questions regarding Standard Fruit's status as a 'vessel' and the existence of an indemnification contract. The court affirmed the dismissal of contribution claims, citing the LHWCA's exclusivity provision, and remitted the matter for a determination on sanctions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLongshoreman InjurySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintLHWCAVessel StatusContractual IndemnityImplied Indemnity
References
14
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

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
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
Showing 1-10 of 1,476 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