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

Spherenomics Global Contact Centers v. Vcustomer Corp.

Plaintiff Spherenomics Global Contact Centers sued defendant vCustomer Corporation for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Spherenomics, a provider of outsourced call-center services, alleged that VCC, its subcontractor, improperly solicited and secured a long-term contract with their mutual client, Fingerhut, in violation of their November 2002 agreement. While the court found that VCC indeed breached the non-solicitation provision, it ultimately ruled in favor of VCC. The court concluded that Spherenomics failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that VCC's breach directly caused Spherenomics to suffer damages, specifically lost profits, deeming such claims too speculative to be recoverable under New York contract law or equitable theories.

Breach of ContractNon-Solicitation AgreementLost ProfitsDamagesCausationPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentContract LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
32
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06423 [222 AD3d 1151]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Mosner v. LINK9 LLC

Claimant, a New Jersey resident, was injured in California and filed a workers' compensation claim in New York, despite the employer's office being typically in New Jersey. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ finding of jurisdiction and dismissed the claim, concluding there were insufficient contacts with New York to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for the Board to have jurisdiction over an out-of-state injury, there must be sufficient and significant contacts between New York and the employer to indicate the employment was, to some extent, sited in the state. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that such contacts were lacking.

Workers' CompensationSubject Matter JurisdictionOut-of-State InjuryNew York ContactsEmployer ResidencyEmployee ResidencyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentJurisdiction Dismissal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2004

Laratro v. City of New York

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning a tort claim against a municipality for injuries sustained due to a failure to provide emergency assistance, a governmental function typically protected by immunity. The dissent argues that the plaintiff failed to establish a 'special relationship' with the municipality, specifically the 'direct contact' element, as contact was made by a coworker rather than the injured party. The opinion emphasizes that expanding the definition of direct contact to include non-family or non-contractual third parties should be a legislative or higher court decision due to the lack of precedent and potential for significantly increased municipal liability. The majority, however, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the municipal defendants' motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint.

Special relationship doctrineMunicipal immunityDirect contactEmergency services liabilityTort lawSummary judgmentNew York appellate courtGovernmental functionCoworker contact
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKee v. Armstrong Contracting & Supply Co.

Claimant, an asbestos worker, became totally disabled due to lung disease. The Workers’ Compensation Board found Armstrong Contracting & Supply Company liable as the last employer under New York jurisdiction, despite the claimant's subsequent employment with Insulation Services. Armstrong appealed, arguing Insulation Services, which employed the claimant in Pennsylvania, should be liable. The court applied the "significant contacts" test, determining that Insulation Services lacked sufficient New York contacts to establish jurisdiction, as the employment was entirely out-of-state. Consequently, the Board's determination that Armstrong was the last employer subject to New York jurisdiction was affirmed.

Occupational DiseaseAsbestosisJurisdictionWorkers' Compensation LawLast EmployerEmployer LiabilityNew York LawInterstate EmploymentSignificant Contacts TestAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. CV-23-0805
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Martin Lleshaj

Claimant Martin Lleshaj, a New York resident and truck driver for an Illinois company, was injured in Pennsylvania and filed a workers' compensation claim in New York. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found sufficient contacts to establish New York jurisdiction, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, dismissing the claim due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was substantial evidence to support the finding of insufficient contacts between claimant's employment and New York, despite his residency and remote application from the state, as the employer had no New York offices and evidence of significant New York-based work was lacking.

Workers' Compensation JurisdictionOut-of-State Injury ClaimSubject Matter JurisdictionInterstate Employment ContactsAppellate Division ReviewEmployer's Business NexusRemote Hiring ImpactTrucking Industry ClaimNew York Workers' Compensation BoardInsufficient Jurisdictional Contacts
References
6
Case No. ADJ10266237; ADJ10401171
Regular
Aug 15, 2025

WILLIAM AREY vs. MAGIC MOUNTAIN, LLC; HARTFORD ACCIDENT AND INDEMNITY COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied defendant Hartford Accident & Indemnity Company's petition for reconsideration. The defendant challenged the April 22, 2025 Joint Findings of Fact and Order, which found that applicant William Arey sustained industrial injuries to his brain, head, nervous system, and circulatory system. Defendant contended the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME) Dr. Roger Bertoldi's report was not substantial medical evidence and that ex parte contact occurred due to applicant's sister's participation in the evaluation. The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, finding Dr. Bertoldi's report to be substantial medical evidence and concluding that the sister's assistance was necessary and permissible due to applicant's significant memory impairment, thus not constituting impermissible ex parte contact.

AMEAgreed Medical Evaluatorex parte contactsubstantial medical evidenceindustrial injurycumulative injuryspecific injuryres judicatacollateral estoppelPetition for Reconsideration
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 2011

Waterman Steamship Corp. v. Ruiz

This case is an interlocutory appeal concerning the denial of special appearances by Waterman Steamship Corporation and Maersk Line, Limited. Appellees, including John Cronan, Miguel Ruiz, and Richard Hicks, sued Waterman and Maersk for negligence under the Jones Act and general maritime law following a pirate hijacking of the M/V MAERSK ALABAMA. The primary legal questions addressed are whether the defendants waived their objections to personal jurisdiction and if they had sufficient continuous and systematic contacts with Texas to establish general jurisdiction. The court affirmed personal jurisdiction over Maersk, citing its regular port calls, significant financial dealings in Texas, and localized employee presence. However, it reversed the lower court's decision regarding Waterman, determining its contacts were too sporadic and fortuitous to support general jurisdiction, leading to its dismissal from the litigation.

Special AppearanceGeneral JurisdictionMinimum ContactsPurposeful AvailmentJones ActMaritime LawInterlocutory AppealWaiver of JurisdictionCorporate ContactsPiracy Incident
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Barnett v. Callaway

A claimant, a chef manager, sustained work-related injuries in Florida in May 2011 while working for an uninsured employer. Despite the injury occurring out-of-state, the claimant, a New York resident, filed a workers' compensation claim in New York. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found sufficient contacts with New York to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) and the employer sought review, which was initially declined for untimeliness/service issues. Subsequently, the Board exercised discretion to address the employer's application on its merits and affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision regarding jurisdiction. The employer then appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion of significant contacts with New York, thus establishing subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionOut-of-state injuryNew York residencyUninsured employerAppellate DivisionBoard discretionSignificant contactsSubject matter jurisdictionChef
References
6
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02043
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 24, 2022

Matter of Jennifer JJ. v. Jessica JJ.

This case involves an appeal by Jessica JJ. (biological mother) from a Family Court order that terminated her postadoption visitation rights with her son and daughter, who were adopted by Jennifer JJ. (adoptive mother). The biological mother had previously surrendered her parental rights under a postadoption contact agreement. The adoptive mother sought modification, citing significant behavioral issues in both children following visits. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding the termination of visitation to be in the children's best interests. The Court noted severe behavioral outbursts in the son, who has autistic spectrum disorder, ADHD, and anxiety, after visits, and a persistent pattern of head banging and nightmares in the daughter correlated with visits. The decision emphasizes the 'best interests of the children' standard for enforcing postadoption contact agreements under Domestic Relations Law § 112-b (4). A dissenting opinion argued that there was insufficient evidence to terminate visitation for the daughter.

Postadoption contactVisitation modificationBest interests of the childParental rights surrenderFamily Court Act Article 6Appellate reviewChildren's behavioral issuesAutistic Spectrum DisorderADHDAnxiety disorder
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05207
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

Smith v. Global Contact Holding Co., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The Supreme Court order had granted the defendants' motion to compel nonparty appellant Transport Workers Union, Local 100's compliance with a subpoena duces tecum. The union argued improper service of the motion, relying on a statutory provision no longer in effect. The court found that the union had waived its objection to personal jurisdiction by failing to object to jurisdiction in response to a prior motion to compel, despite its counsel receiving the subpoena. Furthermore, the union failed to demonstrate that the motion to compel constituted harassment or annoyance, as it sought compliance with a prior order to turn over relevant documents. A separate motion by defendants for Sandra Lennon to withdraw her appeal was granted.

Appellate DivisionSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to CompelPersonal JurisdictionWaiver of ObjectionCivil ProcedureNonparty AppellantUnion DocumentsDiscovery DisputeJudiciary Law
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,258 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