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

People v. 14 West Garment Factory Corp.

This case concerns a special proceeding initiated by Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General of the State of New York, seeking injunctive relief against apparel manufacturers and contractors, 14 West Garment Factory Corp. and Ding and Mag Fashion, Inc. The petitioner alleged that the respondents were producing and selling 'hot goods' in violation of Labor Law articles 6 and 19, pertaining to wage payment and minimum wage. The court had previously issued a temporary restraining order, and the current opinion addresses the petitioner's motion for a preliminary injunction and 14 West's cross-motion to dismiss. Justice Alice Schlesinger granted the preliminary injunction and denied the motion to dismiss, affirming the strict liability of manufacturers and contractors under the 'hot goods' law, distinct from retailers who have a good-faith exception. The court emphasized the remedial purpose of the statute to protect workers from underpayment and to prevent illicit profits from illegal labor.

Injunctive ReliefLabor Law ViolationsHot GoodsWage TheftMinimum WageApparel IndustryStrict LiabilityStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawRegulatory Enforcement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 1979

Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The claimant-appellant's motion dated February 14, 1979, was denied without costs. Additionally, the court, on its own motion, dismissed the appeal from the board's decision filed September 29, 1978. The dismissal was based on the determination being nonfinal and therefore not appealable at this time. The court noted that dismissing the appeal should expedite the examination of the claimant by impartial specialists, which had been delayed due to the appeal's pendency. The claimant retains the right to seek review of any adverse rulings from the September 29, 1978 decision upon an appeal from the board's final decision in the case.

Motion PracticeAppeal DismissalNon-Final OrderExpedited ExaminationImpartial Specialists
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06093 [210 AD3d 417]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2022

Polonia v. 14 Sutton Tenants Corp.

Plaintiff Charles Felix Polonia was injured after tripping on a wooden plank on a sidewalk bridge at a construction site. He filed suit against 14 Sutton Tenants Corporation and Central Construction Management, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied Polonia's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss all causes of action against them. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the Labor Law claims were inapplicable and that Central Construction Management did not create the dangerous condition or supervise the work. The court determined that Polonia's fall was not due to a height differential or lack of fall protection as required by the cited Labor Law sections.

Construction AccidentSidewalk BridgeLabor LawSummary JudgmentFall ProtectionIndustrial CodeNegligenceSupervisory ControlPremises LiabilityAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. ADJ7803069
Regular
Mar 22, 2016

EDILBERTO CERNA ROMERO vs. STONES AND TRADITIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the judge's finding regarding a September 14, 2015 utilization review (UR) decision. The Board found this second UR decision, which sought further information on some treatments, to be timely for all requested modalities. Consequently, the Board ruled that the UR decision of September 14, 2015, was timely, and the WCJ lacked jurisdiction to review the medical necessity of the denied treatments. The Board did not disturb the WCJ's finding that the August 12, 2015 UR decision was untimely.

Utilization ReviewTimelinessLabor Code Section 4610Request for AuthorizationDWC Form RFAIndependent Medical ReviewMedical NecessityProspective ReviewConcurrent ReviewAppeals Board
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 2014

Myiow v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an employee of Brooklyn Welding Corp., was injured at Harlem Hospital when he fell 13-14 feet from a flatbed truck while preparing steel beams for hoisting, after a piece of dunnage broke. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing a lack of proper safety devices. The defendants cross-moved, contending the accident was not an elevation-related hazard contemplated by the statute. The motion court granted the plaintiff's motion and denied the defendants' cross-motion, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The court found that a fall from 13-14 feet constitutes an elevation-related risk and that the provision of an inadequate safety harness established liability.

elevation-related risksummary judgmentliabilityinadequate safety devicesconstruction accidentfall from heightflatbed truckdunnageLabor Law § 240 (1)appellate division
References
6
Case No. CV 96 3467 (RJD)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1997

Gray v. GROVE MFG. CO., DIV. OF KIDDE, INC.

Plaintiffs, including union officials and beneficiaries of Local 14, initiated an action against Grove Manufacturing Company for tortious interference with contract and prima facie tort, also seeking a permanent injunction. The case was removed to the United States District Court, E.D. New York, due to a federal pre-emption claim under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The core dispute revolved around Grove's marketing of a 'cherrypicker' crane, allegedly enabling employers to bypass a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) requiring a union member for cranes exceeding a certain lift capacity. The court dismissed the prima facie tort claim, citing inadequate pleading of special damages and insufficient evidence of 'disinterested malevolence.' Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment to Grove on the tortious interference and injunction claims, ruling that these state law claims were pre-empted by LMRA § 301 because their resolution necessitated interpretation of the CBA and implicated fundamental federal labor law principles, including the strong policy favoring arbitration.

Labor LawLMRA Section 301Pre-emptionTortious InterferencePrima Facie TortCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionArbitrationUnion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Andujar v. More Candy Co.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workmen’s Compensation Board decision regarding the calculation of a claimant’s average weekly wage following a compensable accident on September 14, 1971. The claimant, a four-day, 10-hour-per-day worker since December 15, 1970, had their average weekly wage computed using a 260 multiple under Section 14 of the Workmen’s Compensation Law, with the Board affirming the Referee’s decision based on the claimant being a 'full-time worker'. The appellate court found that subdivisions 1 and 2 of Section 14 could not apply as they are restricted to five-day workers, and that only subdivision 3 was applicable. The court determined that using a 260 multiple merely because the claimant was a 'full-time worker' lacked statutory basis and support in the record. Consequently, the decision was reversed and the matter remitted to the Workmen’s Compensation Board for proper computation of a multiple pursuant to subdivision 3, recognizing the claimant's status as a four-day worker to ensure compensation reflects their true wage-earning capacity.

Workers' Compensation LawAverage Weekly WageWage Calculation260 MultipleFour-Day Work WeekFull-Time WorkerStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Showing 1-10 of 1,194 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