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

In re the Arbitration between American Machine & Foundry Co. & Fay

The case involves three motions: the employer, American Machine & Foundry Company, seeks to stay arbitration initiated by Amalgamated Machine, Instrument & Metal Local 475 (union local); the union local seeks to compel arbitration; and William S. Abernathy, claiming to be chairman of the shop committee, seeks to intervene in support of the employer. The employer is caught between two factions of the union, each claiming authority over the grievance committee. The court grants Abernathy's motion to intervene, finding it a proper case under the Civil Practice Act. The court determines that the central issue of which committee has the authority to administer the collective bargaining agreement's grievance provisions is a triable issue of fact that cannot be decided on affidavits. Therefore, a jury trial is ordered for an early date in January 1949 to determine this authority, and all arbitration proceedings are stayed until then.

arbitration disputelabor lawcollective bargaininggrievance procedureunion representationintra-union conflictcourt interventionstay proceedingsjury trialprocedural law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Gallo v. LiMandri

This case concerns the appeal of a decision to annul the revocation of a petitioner's hoist machine operator (HMO) license. The respondent Commissioner had revoked the license based on the petitioner's prior mail fraud conviction, stemming from an alleged scheme involving preferential union job assignments. The Supreme Court annulled the revocation and ordered a one-year suspension, a decision unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The court found the Commissioner's revocation excessive given the specific circumstances of the petitioner's conviction, noting a lack of evidence for bribes or kickbacks and the questionable legal theory behind the mail fraud charge after the Skilling v United States decision. The court distinguished the petitioner's culpability from other cases involving more severe offenses like extortion.

License RevocationMail FraudHoist Machine OperatorMoral CharacterAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUnion Job AssignmentsOrganized CrimeAdministrative DiscretionPenalty Excessive
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Dyke v. Columbia MacHine, Inc.

Plaintiff Travis Van Dyke, a Pennsylvania resident, was gravely injured while performing maintenance on a palletizer machine manufactured by Columbia Machine Inc. and operated by his employer, Leprino Foods Company, at a plant located on the New York and Pennsylvania state line. Plaintiff received Pennsylvania workers' compensation. Columbia, a Washington corporation, filed a third-party complaint against Leprino, a Colorado corporation with operations in multiple states, seeking contribution or indemnification under New York Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which allows such claims in "grave injury" cases. Leprino moved to dismiss, arguing that Pennsylvania law, which prohibits such third-party actions against employers, should apply. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules, found that Pennsylvania had a greater interest in protecting its statutory scheme immunizing employers. Consequently, the court granted Leprino's motion to dismiss Columbia's third-party complaint, ruling that Pennsylvania law applies.

Choice of LawWorkers' CompensationContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsGrave InjuryEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionsProducts LiabilityFederal DiversityNew York Workers' Compensation Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kern v. Roemer MacHine & Welding Co.

William and Dorothy Kern initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Roemer Machine & Welding Co., alleging negligence, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. The claims arose from severe hand injuries William Kern sustained while operating a machine at Frye Copysystems, Inc., which Roemer allegedly manufactured with a defective design lacking safety features. Roemer, in turn, impleaded Frye as a third-party defendant, arguing it merely assembled the machine to Frye's specifications and was not responsible for the design. The court, presided over by Judge Sweet, granted Roemer's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Kerns failed to present material facts demonstrating Roemer's design responsibility, and consequently denied the Kerns' cross-motion.

Summary judgmentProduct liabilityNegligenceBreach of warrantyStrict liabilityMachine designIndustrial accidentPersonal injuryManufacturing defectDesign defect
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1976

Ashe v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works

The plaintiff, a newly employed worker, sustained personal injuries while operating a press brake machine. He disregarded a prominently placed sign and his foreman's warnings by placing his hand within the die area. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, entered a judgment in favor of the defendant manufacturer based on a jury verdict. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, finding the machine was not ready for use until dies were installed by the purchaser (plaintiff’s employer). Additionally, the plaintiff was found guilty of contributory negligence as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryPress Brake MachineContributory NegligenceJury VerdictManufacturer LiabilityProduct LiabilityWorkplace SafetyMachine OperationAffirmation of JudgmentNassau County
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01454
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Sokolovic v. Throgs Neck Operating Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning hold harmless and indemnity agreements. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted Vision Healthcare Services' motion to enforce a hold harmless agreement and Throgs Neck Operating Company, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim against Vision. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed these orders. The court held that the plaintiff was obligated to hold Vision harmless from Throgs Neck's indemnification claim due to a hold harmless agreement executed during settlement. It further clarified that a nurse provided by Vision to Throgs Neck remained Vision's general employee, thereby triggering Vision's contractual indemnity obligation, despite being considered a special employee of Throgs Neck for the purpose of Throgs Neck's liability to the plaintiff.

hold harmless agreementcontractual indemnityspecial employeegeneral employeestaffing agreementsettlement agreementsummary judgmentnegligenceagency liabilityappellate review
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01980, 525411
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Portlette v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

Claimant Oneshiua Portlette, a bus operator, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. Initially, her employer, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, paid benefits for injuries Portlette reported sustained in a bus accident. However, the employer later suspended payments and raised fraud concerns after video evidence contradicted Portlette's account of the incident and her injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board found that Portlette failed to prove a causally-related injury and made material misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's consideration of the employer's evidence despite a lack of timely notice of controversy, and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions which supported that no causally-related injury occurred.

Workers' CompensationCausationFraudVideo EvidenceMedical OpinionNotice of ControversyPreclusionAppellate ReviewBus OperatorInjury Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Finocchio v. W. A. White Underwear Corp.

The claimant, a sewing machine operator, sustained an injury in 1955 and was later found to have a permanent partial disability in 1963. In 1974, her employer ceased operations, leading to an inability to find new work. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits for reduced earnings, determining she remained in the labor market. The employer appealed, arguing that the reduced earnings were solely due to economic conditions. The appellate court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient proof that the claimant’s disability contributed to her reduced earnings after her employer went out of business, and remitted the case for further findings on the cause of the reduced earnings.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsEconomic ConditionsCausationBurden of ProofAppellate ReviewRemittalWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2009

Tepperwien v. Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc.

Plaintiff James Tepperwien filed a Title VII action against his former employer, Entergy Nuclear Operations, Inc., alleging same-sex sexual harassment by a co-worker, Yito Messina, and subsequent retaliation. The harassment included physical assault and sexually explicit remarks, which Tepperwien reported to management. Entergy moved for summary judgment on claims of hostile work environment, retaliation, and constructive discharge. The court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment and a portion of the retaliation claim, finding sufficient factual disputes for trial. However, the court granted summary judgment to Entergy on the constructive discharge claim, concluding that the plaintiff's working conditions were not objectively intolerable.

Same-sex harassmentTitle VIIHostile work environmentRetaliationConstructive dischargeSummary judgmentWorkplace discriminationSexual harassmentEmployer liabilityFederal court decision
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 1,310 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