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. 2024-02870
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 2026

Samuel v. Petainer

Ori Samuel sustained personal injuries when a kombucha keg exploded at a storage facility. Samuel, a brand ambassador for GT's Living Foods, LLC (GTLF), received workers' compensation benefits through Atrium Payroll Services, LLC, which was GTLF's "employer of record." Samuel filed a personal injury action against multiple defendants, including GTLF. GTLF moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was Samuel's special employer, thus limiting its liability under the Workers' Compensation Law, and that Samuel did not suffer a "grave injury." The Supreme Court denied GTLF's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, finding that GTLF successfully established its prima facie case as a special employer and that no grave injury occurred, thereby granting summary judgment to GTLF on the amended complaint and all cross-claims for contribution and common-law indemnification.

Personal InjurySpecial EmploymentWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionEmployer LiabilityContributionIndemnificationKombucha ExplosionBrand Ambassador
References
12
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05725 [221 AD3d 805]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2023

MJ Lilly Assoc., LLC v. Ovis Creative, LLC

The plaintiff, MJ Lilly Associates, LLC, initiated legal action against Ovis Creative, LLC, alleging violations of the Freelance Isn't Free Act (FIFA). The claims stemmed from the defendant's alleged failure to provide written contracts and to timely pay for freelance work performed by the plaintiff. Ovis Creative, LLC subsequently filed a motion to dismiss the FIFA causes of action, asserting that MJ Lilly Associates, LLC did not qualify as a 'freelance worker' under the Act. The Supreme Court denied this dismissal motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendant's submitted evidence did not meet the criteria for 'documentary evidence' required for dismissal under CPLR 3211 (a)(1) and that the plaintiff had adequately stated a cause of action under CPLR 3211 (a)(7).

Freelance Isn't Free ActFIFAIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary EvidenceContract DisputePayment DisputeNew York City Administrative Code
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MLF3 Airitan LLC v. 2338 Second Avenue Mazal LLC

This case involves MLF3 Airitan LLC and MLF3 DC LLC (plaintiffs) suing 2338 Second Avenue Mazal LLC, 167th Street Mazal LLC, Eran Polack, Amir Hasid, Nir Amsel, Bank Leumi USA, and John Doe numbers 1 through 10 (defendants) for breach of fiduciary duty, trust fund diversion, and a declaratory judgment regarding mechanic's liens. Plaintiffs sought an accounting, damages, and priority for their mechanic's liens over Bank Leumi's liens, citing improper notice of lending and unfiled material modifications to loan agreements under the Lien Law. Defendants Bank Leumi and the Mazal entities cross-moved to dismiss based on various procedural grounds and failure to state a cause of action. The court granted Bank Leumi's motions to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action concerning the priority claims. However, it denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the sixth cause of action, allowing the action to proceed concurrently with a lien foreclosure action. Additionally, the court granted plaintiffs' cross-motions for an interim accounting and for consolidation of the actions.

Mechanic's LiensDeclaratory JudgmentTrust Fund DiversionBreach of Fiduciary DutyBuilding Loan AgreementLien Law Article 3-AMotion to DismissInterim AccountingConsolidation of ActionsPriority Disputes
References
35
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04102
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2024

Powerflex Solar, LLC v. Solar PV Pros, LLC

Plaintiff Powerflex Solar, LLC appealed two orders from Supreme Court in Albany County. The first order partially granted motions by defendants Solar PV Pros, LLC (SPVP) and EoS Organization, LLC to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction regarding agreements for solar modules to be delivered to Rhode Island and California, and for failure to state claims for breach of contract as a third-party beneficiary and conversion against EoS. The second order adhered to the prior decision upon reargument. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding no articulable nexus between the New York agreements and the Rhode Island and California agreements for personal jurisdiction. The court also agreed that plaintiff was not a third-party beneficiary of the Meitus-EoS agreements and failed to state a claim for conversion due to lack of identifiable funds.

Personal JurisdictionContract LawThird-Party BeneficiaryConversionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewJurisdictional NexusDelaware LLCCalifornia LawSolar Modules
References
33
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03533 [239 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2025

MevRam Servs., LLC v. Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a 'no-poaching' provision within staffing agreements between MevRam Services, LLC and Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC, along with its affiliates. MevRam Services, LLC furnished employees to the Arlo hotels, and the agreement prohibited defendants from hiring these employees for a period. Defendants moved to dismiss MevRam's claims, arguing the provision violated the New York City Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (DBSWPA) and constituted unenforceable penalties. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the no-poaching provision did not violate the DBSWPA as employees were not displaced, and defendants failed to demonstrate any overriding public policy concerns or that the fees were penalties.

No-Poaching ClauseStaffing AgreementBreach of ContractLiquidated DamagesMotion to DismissDisplaced Building Service Workers Protection ActAppellate DivisionContract LawEmployment LawHotel Industry
References
3
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03319
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 2023

Winston Salem RI LLC v. Ladder Capital Fin. LLC

This case concerns an appeal by Winston Salem RI LLC against Ladder Capital Finance LLC regarding the dismissal of breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a Supreme Court order, reinstating claims related to the payment of forbearance fees and improper foreclosures, while affirming other aspects. The court clarified that a specific loan agreement section does not bar claims not challenging the reasonableness of Ladder's actions. Furthermore, it ruled that demand futility was adequately pleaded under Delaware law and that there is no heightened pleading requirement for breach of contract claims.

Breach of ContractDemand FutilityLoan AgreementsForbearance FeesImproper ForeclosuresAppellate ReviewDelaware LawPleading RequirementsContractual InterpretationMotion to Dismiss
References
3
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04460 [173 AD3d 437]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2019

Madison Sullivan Partners LLC v. PMG Sullivan St., LLC

Plaintiff Madison Sullivan Partners LLC appealed an order that dismissed its complaint against PMG Sullivan Street, LLC and awarded attorneys' fees to the defendants. The plaintiff alleged damages from a joint property development due to delays, cost overruns, bad faith, intentional wrongdoing, and gross negligence by PMG Sullivan. The court found that the plaintiff's allegations were insufficient to demonstrate demand futility under Delaware law, lacking particularized facts to show a 'substantial likelihood' of personal liability for the defendants. Consequently, claims for breach of fiduciary duty and aiding and abetting were dismissed. Furthermore, the claim for an accounting was deemed abandoned, and the breach of construction management agreement claim was barred by a waiver of consequential damages. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, including the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants, finding the contractual provision plainly supported such an award to the prevailing party.

Business disputeDemand futilityDelaware lawFiduciary dutyAttorneys' feesConsequential damagesWaiverContract enforcementDerivative actionAppellate review
References
7
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05448 [242 AD3d 441]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2025

437 W. 36th St. LLC v. ZDJ W 37 LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to dismiss the plaintiff's causes of action for declaratory judgment based on adverse possession and for permanent injunctive relief, and denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction. The plaintiff, 437 West 36th Street LLC, failed to sufficiently plead hostile use regarding a retaining wall abutting two properties, as its mutually beneficial nature suggests permissive use. Furthermore, the plaintiff did not demonstrate irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits required for injunctive relief concerning interference with retaining walls or ongoing excavation work by the defendant, ZDJ W 37 LLC.

Adverse PossessionInjunctive ReliefRetaining WallProperty DisputeHostile PossessionIrreparable HarmPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal Property Law
References
5
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02778 [216 AD3d 1084]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2023

Middletown Flea Mkt., LLC v. Middletown Plaza Holdings, LLC

The case of Middletown Flea Market, LLC v Middletown Plaza Holdings, LLC concerns an appeal regarding the denial of a Yellowstone injunction. The plaintiff, a commercial tenant, sought to prevent the termination of its lease by the defendant landlord. The landlord issued a notice of termination citing breaches of the lease agreement, including the tenant's failure to obtain required insurance for contractors and unauthorized subletting. The Supreme Court denied the injunction, and this decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. The courts found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate its willingness and ability to cure the alleged defaults, particularly concerning the continuous maintenance of appropriate insurance coverage.

Yellowstone injunctioncommercial lease disputelease terminationfailure to cure defaultinsurance compliancelandlord-tenant lawAppellate Division Second Departmentreal estate lawinjunctive reliefcontract breach
References
8
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24241
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Cipriani Fifth Ave., LLC v. RPCI Landmark Props., LLC

Cipriani Fifth Avenue, LLC, operating the Rainbow Room at 30 Rockefeller Plaza, sought a preliminary injunction against its landlord, RCPI Landmark Properties, LLC, to prevent the implementation of new security measures, specifically metal detectors, applicable only to Cipriani's employees and guests. Cipriani alleged that these measures constituted a breach of lease, irreparable harm to its reputation and business, and discriminatory enforcement of rules. The defendant argued that heightened security was necessary in a post-9/11 world and permissible under the lease. The court analyzed the three prerequisites for preliminary injunctive relief: likelihood of success on the merits, danger of irreparable injury, and a balancing of the equities. The court denied the injunction, finding that Cipriani failed to establish a prima facie showing of likelihood of success on the merits, as the lease granted the landlord the right to alter security systems and the rules and regulations were not applied in a discriminatory fashion.

Landlord-Tenant DisputePreliminary InjunctionLease BreachCommercial PropertyBuilding SecurityIrreparable InjuryEquity BalancingContract InterpretationDiscriminatory PracticeRockefeller Center
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,983 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