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
Jul 29, 1997

Capalbo v. Lederle Laboratories, Inc.

All Bright Electric appealed an order concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff, an employee of All Bright Electric, was injured after falling from a ladder while drilling, leading to claims under common-law negligence. The plaintiff later sought to amend the complaint to include Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, citing unexcused delay and lack of merit. Consequently, with the common-law negligence claim already dismissed, no viable causes of action remained against Lederle Laboratories, Inc., and Lederle's third-party complaint against All Bright for common-law and contractual indemnification was dismissed. However, the court upheld the denial of All Bright's motion to dismiss Hilti Company, Inc.'s cross-claim, citing unresolved issues of fact.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationAmended ComplaintAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawDrill AccidentLadder Fall
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Song v. Ives Laboratories, Inc.

Dr. Samuel Song was terminated by Ives Laboratories, Inc., leading him to file a discrimination charge with the EEOC, which was referred to the SDHR. The SDHR dismissed his complaint for administrative convenience. Song subsequently sued, alleging national origin discrimination under federal civil rights acts and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendant moved for partial summary judgment, seeking to dismiss the Section 1981 claim and the state law claim. The court granted dismissal of the Section 1981 claim, applying the precedent of Patterson v. McLean Credit Union retroactively. However, the court denied the dismissal of the Human Rights Law claim, affirming that an administrative convenience dismissal by the SDHR preserves the right to sue and that exercising pendent jurisdiction was appropriate.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1866Title VII Civil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawRetroactive Application of LawPendent JurisdictionElection of RemediesAdministrative Convenience DismissalSummary Judgment
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bandhan v. Laboratory Corp. of America

Plaintiff Angela Bandhan sued her former employer, Laboratory Corporation of America (LabCorp.), alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendant moved for summary judgment. Magistrate Judge George A. Yanthis recommended granting summary judgment on failure to promote and unequal pay claims, but denying it on wrongful termination and retaliation claims. Both parties filed objections to the Report. District Judge Berman adopted the Magistrate's Report in its entirety, finding no prima facie case for failure to promote or unequal pay, but genuine issues of material fact regarding wrongful termination and retaliation, allowing those claims to proceed to trial. The Court therefore granted in part and denied in part Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, and directed the parties to a trial scheduling/settlement conference.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayWrongful Termination
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tardd v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Malry Tarrd and Otto White sued Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and several individual employees, alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract under Title VII, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1985(3), 1986, and the NYSHRL. Plaintiffs described a hostile work environment, racial slurs, a Ku Klux Klan hood incident, and denied promotions. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, and the federal enclave doctrine. The Court partially granted the dismissal motion, notably dismissing certain individual Section 1981 and NYSHRL claims, all Section 1985 and 1986 claims, and most breach of contract claims, while allowing Tardd's breach of settlement agreement claim to proceed. The Court also denied the defendants' motion regarding the federal enclave doctrine and rejected the plaintiffs' request for Rule 11 sanctions.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. Section 1981NYSHRLMotion to DismissJudgment on PleadingsFederal Enclave DoctrineElection of Remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2004

Schramm v. Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory

This case concerns an appeal by third-party defendants W.T. Hickey Corp. and Hickey Electric Co., Inc., from an order denying their motion to dismiss claims for common-law indemnification and contribution as premature. The defendant third-party plaintiff, Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, also filed a cross-appeal. The court examined Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits employer liability to third parties for contribution or indemnity unless a "grave injury" is proven, and discussed the distinction between general and special employment. The appellate court found the third-party defendants failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a special employment relationship. Consequently, the cross-appeal was dismissed as the defendant was not aggrieved, and the original order was affirmed.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryGeneral EmployerSpecial EmployerSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1983

American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. v. North River Insurance

Vincent Yeager, an employee of American White Cross Laboratories, Inc. (American), was injured during employment, leading to a lawsuit against a machine manufacturer, who then brought a third-party action against American for indemnification. American was covered by both a workers’ compensation policy from the State Insurance Fund and a general liability policy from North River Insurance Co. North River disclaimed liability, citing exclusions for workers’ compensation obligations and bodily injury to employees. American then initiated a fourth-party action against North River for contribution. The Supreme Court initially denied American's summary judgment motion and granted North River's cross-motion to dismiss, with leave to replead for indemnification. This court reversed, holding that North River's exclusions do not insulate it from American’s claims because the employer's liability to a third-party tort-feasor for an employee's injury arises from equitable apportionment, not directly from workers' compensation law, thus granting American's motion for summary judgment and denying North River's cross-motion.

Insurance coverage disputeGeneral liability policyWorkers' compensation exclusionContribution between tort-feasorsIndemnificationSummary judgmentFourth-party actionDole-Dow doctrineEquitable apportionmentEmployer liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Landon v. Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc.

This case addresses whether a drug testing laboratory can be held liable in tort to a non-contracting subject for negligent testing. The plaintiff, while on probation in Orange County, submitted an oral fluid sample that Kroll Laboratory Specialists, Inc., falsely reported as positive for marijuana. The lab allegedly used a lower cutoff level than recommended and failed to perform a confirmatory GC/MS test, leading to an extension of the plaintiff's probation. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed, asserting that a duty of reasonable care exists due to the severe consequences of inaccurate drug test results on individuals' lives and the lack of market incentives for testing accuracy. The court concluded that the plaintiff's complaint adequately stated a cause of action for negligence.

Drug TestingNegligenceTort LiabilityForensic ToxicologyPrivity of ContractDuty of CareProbation ViolationFalse PositiveLaboratory StandardsCPLR 3211(a)(7)
References
101
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federal Insurance v. Spectrum Insurance Brokerage Services, Inc.

The court affirmed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order dismissed claims against Spectrum Insurance Brokerage Services, Inc. and Joseph Mangano, asserted by the plaintiff insurer as subrogee of Sablons Investors, Inc. and Bankers Trust New York Corporation, on the grounds that the insureds had no viable claim against the broker. The second order, upon renewal, also dismissed the complaint against Spectrum and Mangano and granted TIG Insurance Company's cross motion for a default judgment on its counterclaims due to the plaintiff's failure to respond. The appellate court agreed with the dismissals and default judgment but clarified that the malpractice and/or negligence claims against the broker were not time-barred under CPLR 214 (6), as that statute does not apply to alleged misfeasance of insurance agents and brokers toward their clients.

SubrogationInsurance BrokerNegligenceMalpracticeSummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentCPLR 3211CPLR 3212CPLR 214(6)Insured
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00588 [158 AD3d 866]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2018

Matter of Jelic (Ama Research Labs. Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Vera Jelic, a laboratory technician, was terminated from AMA Research Laboratories Inc. due to repeated tardiness and absenteeism. She filed for unemployment insurance benefits, which were initially granted by the Department of Labor and affirmed by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The employer appealed, arguing that Jelic's actions constituted disqualifying misconduct. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding that while the employer had cause for termination, Jelic's conduct did not demonstrate a willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest to rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct. The court noted that disciplinary actions occurred after a work-related injury and that Jelic was not given an opportunity to correct her behavior prior to termination.

Unemployment InsuranceDisqualifying MisconductTardinessAbsenteeismEmployment TerminationWillful and Wanton DisregardSubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionLabor LawEmployer Interest
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 97 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