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

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lamberson v. Six West Retail Acquisition, Inc.

Plaintiff Gregory Lamberson, a Caucasian male, sued his employer, Six West Retail Acquisition Inc., and individuals Sheldon Solow and Jeffery Jacobs, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and New York law. Lamberson claimed he was unlawfully discharged after complaining about the reassignment of an African-American employee, Derrick Caver, from a public-facing role due to his appearance. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Lamberson was fired for poor managerial judgment. The court granted summary judgment on the race discrimination claims, finding Lamberson, as a Caucasian, was not a member of a protected class and failed to show a hostile work environment or infringement on his right to interracial association. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claims, ruling that Lamberson raised a triable issue as to whether his complaints about Caver's reassignment were protected activity and if there was a causal connection to his discharge. Consequently, retaliation claims against Six West, Solow, and Jacobs survive.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawUnlawful DischargeSummary JudgmentManagerial DutiesEmployee ReassignmentHostile Work Environment
References
43
Case No. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith Barney Shearson Inc. v. Sacharow

This opinion addresses two consolidated cases, Smith Barney, Inc. v. Sacharow and Smith Barney, Inc. v. Hause, concerning the arbitrability of securities transaction disputes under the NASD Code of Arbitration Procedure. Smith Barney sought to stay arbitrations initiated by customers Sacharow and Hause, arguing that claims over six years old were ineligible per NASD Code § 15 and that courts, not arbitrators, should decide this eligibility. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision to compel arbitration, holding that while § 15 is a substantive eligibility requirement, the broad language of the arbitration agreements and the incorporation of NASD Code § 35 indicated a 'clear and unmistakable' intent by the parties to arbitrate issues of arbitrability. Furthermore, the court clarified that a general New York choice of law provision in the customer agreements does not override this intent or limit the arbitrators' authority. The decision reinforces a strong public policy favoring comprehensive arbitration and protects consumers from investment houses attempting to evade their own broad arbitration agreements.

Arbitration AgreementSecurities TransactionsArbitrabilityNASD Code Section 15Time BarChoice of LawFederal Arbitration ActCustomer AgreementsInvestment DisputesBrokerage Accounts
References
31
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00043 [234 AD3d 436]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2025

Gibraltar Contr., Inc. v. Tully Constr. Co. Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order denying defendant Tully Construction Co. Inc.'s motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Gibraltar Contracting, Inc. The court determined that a six-month contractual limitations period was not triggered because the condition of "final acceptance of the work by Owner" was not unequivocally met by a

Construction contractStatute of limitationsOral modificationBreach of contractMotion to dismissAppellate procedureSubcontract disputeOwner acceptanceContractor liabilityLabor costs
References
3
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08027 [155 AD3d 900]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2017

Poalacin v. Mall Properties, Inc.

The plaintiff, Nelson Poalacin, was injured when he fell from a defective ladder while working at a retail property undergoing refurbishment. He sued multiple defendants, including the property owners (Mall Properties, Inc., KMO-361 Realty Associates, LLC, The Gap, Inc.), the general contractor (James Hunt Construction), and subcontractors (Weather Champions, Ltd., APCO Insulation Co., Inc.), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200, and 241 (6), as well as common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied Poalacin's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and later granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's orders, granting Poalacin summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the other Labor Law claims. The court also made declarations regarding indemnification and insurance coverage between the parties, finding Harleysville Insurance's policy was excess to Netherlands Insurance Company's policy, and remitted the matter for judgment entry.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentWorkplace SafetyLadder FallSummary JudgmentIndemnificationInsurance DisputesAdditional InsuredCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party Action
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DAR & Associates, Inc. v. Uniforce Services, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of DAR & Associates, Inc., its principals, and D.A.R. Temps, Inc., initiated a lawsuit against Uniforee Services, Inc. The core of the action sought a declaratory judgment that restrictive covenants and a liquidated damages provision in their contracts were unenforceable under New York law, alongside a breach of contract claim. In addressing cross-motions for partial summary judgment, the court found Uniforee possessed legitimate business interests warranting the protection of the restrictive covenants, deeming them reasonable in duration and geographic scope. Furthermore, the court upheld the enforceability of the liquidated damages clause, concluding that actual damages were difficult to ascertain at the time of contract and the agreed-upon sum was reasonable. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion was granted, effectively validating the contractual provisions at issue.

Restrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseNon-solicitation ClauseLiquidated DamagesBreach of ContractDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentFranchise AgreementLicensing AgreementUnfair Competition
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Letman v. Milau Associates, Inc.

The case addresses a motion by third-party plaintiff Milau Associates, Inc., seeking to strike affirmative defenses raised by third-party defendant Edward F. Hickey, Inc., the employer of an injured construction worker. Hickey argued that the Workers' Compensation Law limited the plaintiff's recovery against Milau and Milau's ability to seek contribution from Hickey. Citing Dole v. Dow Chem. Co., the court affirmed that the Workers' Compensation Law does not restrict a plaintiff's full recovery from a non-employer tort-feasor, nor does it preclude a non-employer from seeking contribution from an employer based on a breach of independent duty. The court ruled that Hickey's defenses were legally insufficient, as the liability asserted was direct, not derivative. Consequently, the motion to strike the affirmative defenses was granted.

Third-party actionWorkmen's Compensation LawExclusive remedyContributionIndemnityApportionment of liabilityJoint tort-feasorsEmployer liabilityNegligenceAffirmative defenses
References
10
Case No. Docket # 7
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. v. Union City Contractors, Inc.

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. against Union City Contractors, Inc. for unpaid debris removal services, and a Miller Act claim against Union City's sureties, Nova Casualty Company and Nova American Groups, Inc. After a bench trial in January 2008, Union City filed for bankruptcy, leading to an automatic stay on claims against them. The court, however, proceeded with Empire's Miller Act claim against Nova. The primary dispute concerned the quantity of debris removed, with Empire claiming 11,470 cubic yards. The court found Empire's evidence credible and rejected Nova's fraud defense, ultimately granting judgment in favor of Empire against Nova for $84,653.63, plus prejudgment interest.

Miller Act claimPayment bondBreach of contractSurety liabilityFederal public works projectDebris removalCubic yardage disputePrejudgment interestAttorney's fees deniedFraud affirmative defense
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 27,785 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