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. 2020 NY Slip Op 02083 [181 AD3d 949]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2020

Klingsberg v. Council of Sch. Supervisors & Adm'rs-Local 1

The plaintiff, Joan Klingsberg, a tenured principal, was removed from her payroll by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) due to financial improprieties. She was represented by Charity Guerra, a staff attorney from her union, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators-Local 1 (CSA), during disciplinary proceedings. After it was revealed Guerra sought a position with the DOE, Klingsberg declined a new attorney and represented herself. Although the arbitrator upheld termination, the DOE Chancellor overturned it, imposing a six-month suspension and returning Klingsberg to a non-administrative teaching position with back pay, followed by a $200,000 settlement. Klingsberg later sued Guerra for legal malpractice and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, alleging a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court granted Guerra's motion to dismiss, finding the action preempted by federal law and barred by a prior release agreement.

Legal MalpracticeJudiciary Law § 487Federal Labor Management Relations ActPreemptionCollective BargainingConflict of InterestRelease AgreementMotion to DismissAppellate DivisionQueens County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of School Supervisors & Administrators, Local 1 v. New York City Department of Education

The Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA) challenged the City's plan to reduce parking permits for school employees, arguing it violated their collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator initially sided with CSA, directing the reinstatement of permits. However, the Supreme Court's decision to confirm this award was deemed erroneous by the appellate court. The appellate court found the arbitration award violated public policy, was irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's authority because the power to issue on-street parking permits lies exclusively with the City's Department of Transportation (DOT), not the Department of Education (DOE). The court emphasized that the award essentially transferred DOT's regulatory authority to DOE and undermined the city's objectives to reduce congestion and pollution. Consequently, the arbitration award was vacated.

Labor disputeParking permitsCollective bargaining agreementArbitration awardPublic policy violationAdministrative lawMunicipal authorityTraffic regulationDepartment of TransportationDepartment of Education
References
4
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

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 615 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