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

Brunetti v. Cape Canaveral Shipping Co., SA

Peter Brunetti, a longshoreman, sued Cape Canaveral Shipping Company, S.A., a shipowner, for personal injuries. Canaveral moved for summary judgment, arguing the suit was barred under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA) Section 33(b) because Brunetti had accepted compensation under a Memorandum of Informal Conference, which Canaveral contended operated as an assignment of his rights. The court, reexamining prior Second Circuit decisions in light of the Supreme Court's Pallas Shipping Agency Ltd. v. Duris (1983) and the Third Circuit's Costa v. Danais Shipping Co. (1983), determined that a Memorandum of Informal Conference, absent a formal compensation order, does not constitute an "award in a compensation order" sufficient to trigger the assignment provisions of LHWCA Section 33(b). Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Actassignment of claimscompensation ordersinformal conferencesummary judgment motionfederal statutory interpretationpersonal injury claimsthird-party liabilitymaritime lawworker compensation benefits
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dominguez v. Cove Ships, Inc.

The plaintiff, a longshoreman, sought damages for injuries on the defendant's ship. The defendant moved to dismiss, arguing the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act barred the suit because the plaintiff served the actual ship owner more than six months after accepting a compensation award. However, the plaintiff had commenced an action against a believed owner before the award, and was delayed in identifying the true owner due to the agent's failure to comply with discovery. The court held that the Act should not bar the plaintiff's action, citing principles of waiver or estoppel, and denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, emphasizing the Act's purpose was not to prevent diligent longshoremen from pursuing third-party claims.

LongshoremenHarbor Workers' Compensation ActThird-Party ActionStatute of LimitationsWaiverEstoppelDiscoveryShip OwnerAgent LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dun Shipping Ltd. v. Amerada Hess Shipping Corp.

Dun Shipping Ltd. filed a complaint to compel Hovensa L.L.C and Amerada Hess Shipping Corporation to arbitrate a maritime claim for contribution to costs incurred in refloating the M/T Knock Dun. Defendants petitioned to stay arbitration and for a declaratory judgment that the claim is not arbitrable, while Plaintiff petitioned to compel arbitration. Magistrate Judge Kevin N. Fox recommended granting Defendants' petition and denying Plaintiff's petition, finding Dun Shipping not a principal to the Voyage Charter Party and no need for discovery regarding Hovensa's notice of the Charter Party. The District Court, after a de novo review, found a contested factual record regarding Dun Shipping's status as a party to the Charter Party and Hovensa's knowledge and acquiescence to its terms. Therefore, the Court granted limited discovery to both Plaintiff and Defendants on these respective issues and referred the matter back to Magistrate Fox for further proceedings based on the outcome of the discovery.

ArbitrationDiscoveryMaritime LawCharter PartyBill of LadingContract InterpretationAgency LawVessel GroundingGeneral Average ClaimFederal Arbitration Act
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1998

Greenidge v. Mundo Shipping Corp.

Plaintiffs Kathleen Greenidge and Wal-wyn Greenidge sued Mundo Shipping Corporation in New York State court for conversion and gross negligence after their automobile, entrusted to Mundo for shipment to the West Indies, was not returned. Mundo removed the action to federal court in the Eastern District of New York, asserting admiralty and federal question jurisdiction based on a bill of lading that allegedly incorporated the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA). The Greenidges moved to remand the case to state court, arguing that their claims were state law claims. The court found that neither admiralty nor federal question jurisdiction was established, concluding that COGSA does not completely preempt state law and that federal defenses do not create federal jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted the Greenidges' motion to remand the case to the Supreme Court, Queens County, and dismissed Mundo's cross-motion for partial summary judgment without prejudice. The court also granted the Greenidges reasonable costs and expenses for the improvident removal.

Removal JurisdictionAdmiralty JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionCarriage of Goods by Sea Act (COGSA)Saving to Suitors ClauseComplete PreemptionWell-Pleaded Complaint RuleArtful PleadingState Court RemandConversion Claim
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bellomo v. United Arab Shipping Co.(SAG)

Plaintiff Filippo Bellomo, a longshore worker, filed a lawsuit under the Longshore and Harbor Workers Compensation Act against United Arab Shipping Company. He claimed injuries to his right shoulder and elbow after falling on a sheet of ice hidden beneath snow on the deck of the M/V ALWATTYAH, owned by the defendant. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing there was no dangerous condition at the time of turnover or that any ice was an obvious hazard. The Court denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the ice was present at turnover and if it constituted a latent hazard that the shipowner knew or should have known about.

Longshore and Harbor Workers ActSummary Judgment MotionShipowner NegligenceDuty of CareLatent HazardMaritime Personal InjurySlip and FallMaterial Fact DisputeFederal Court ProcedureStevedoring Operations
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Four Points Shipping & Trading, Inc. v. Poloron Israel, L.P.

The case concerns a dispute over a canceled shipment of prefabricated housing parts. Plaintiff Four Points Shipping and Trading, Inc. sued Poloron Israel, L.P., and TMT Homes, Inc., for lost profits and out-of-pocket expenses. The core issue revolved around a contract between Four Points and Poloron, contingent on a separate manufacturing agreement becoming "effective," which the court interpreted as actual production capability, not just signing. Due to the manufacturer's financial difficulties, the parts were never produced. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment on the lost profits claim, citing contractual exculpatory clauses and the speculative nature of the damages. However, it denied summary judgment for both parties on the out-of-pocket expenses, allowing Four Points to pursue this claim if it can demonstrate it was misled by Poloron. The court also suggested alternative dispute resolution for the remaining issue.

Contract disputeMaritime lawNew York lawSummary judgmentLost profitsOut-of-pocket expensesBreach of contractContingent contractExculpatory clauseContract interpretation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKay v. Point Shipping Corp.

The Marine Engineers Beneficial Association (Union) filed a motion to remand an action previously removed to federal court by Point Vail Company. The Union sought to confirm an arbitrator's award against Point Vail and Point Shipping Corporation regarding a collective bargaining agreement dispute. Point Vail opposed the remand, claiming Point Shipping was fraudulently joined, thus obviating its need to consent to removal. The District Court found no evidence of fraudulent joinder, noting that the Union sought relief against Point Shipping, whose potential liability was substantial despite an indemnity agreement. Consequently, the court ruled the removal petition defective due to Point Shipping's non-joinder and ordered the case remanded to the New York Supreme Court, while denying the Union's request for litigation fees.

Remand MotionFraudulent JoinderRemoval JurisdictionArbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawFederal CourtState CourtIndemnity AgreementUnion Dispute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1999

In re the Claim of Fishman

The claimant, a shipping clerk, was terminated for violating the employer's policy against consuming alcohol on company time, after he admitted drinking beer during his lunch break and returning to work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that consuming alcohol on the job, especially in violation of established company policy, constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court rejected the claimant's defense that he was unaware of the policy because he had not read his employee handbook, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductAlcohol Policy ViolationWorkplace AlcoholEmployee DischargeUnemployment BenefitsAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed DecisionEmployer PolicyLunch Break Violation
References
3
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 2,389 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