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

Zlateff v. Contour Erection & Siding Systems, Inc.

Daniel Zlateff, president and sole shareholder of Z-Boing, Inc., was injured while bungee jumping during an exhibition event. The crane for the event was provided by Contour Erection & Siding Systems, Inc., and the event was planned by Zlateff, Linda Monforte, and Christopher Eberle. Monforte owned the property where the event occurred and also managed Erie Shores, Inc., which operated Calico Jack’s Restaurant. Eberle was the president of Contour. The Supreme Court had previously granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against the defendants. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, reinstating the complaint, citing material issues of fact that preclude summary judgment. These issues include the existence and identity of a joint venture, the availability of workers’ compensation coverage, and whether Zlateff was an employee or acting independently to further his own business.

Bungee Jumping AccidentSummary Judgment AppealJoint Venture DisputeWorkers' Compensation CoverageEmployment StatusPersonal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityCorporate LiabilityAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zinaman v. USTS New York, Inc.

Lawrence M. Zinaman sued USTS New York, Inc. and US-Travel Systems, Inc. for breach of contract, fraud, and age discrimination under the ADEA and New York's Human Rights Law. Defendants moved to dismiss several claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against US-Travel Systems, Inc., finding insufficient pleading for an 'alter ego' theory. The fraud claim against USTS New York, Inc. was also dismissed, as it merely restated the breach of contract claim. However, the court denied the dismissal of Zinaman's state common law contract claims and state age discrimination claims against USTS. The court also denied the defendants' motion to strike portions of the complaint. Zinaman was directed to amend his complaint regarding the state age discrimination claim.

Age DiscriminationBreach of ContractFraudEmployment AgreementAlter Ego TheoryPendent JurisdictionMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(f)ADEA
References
20
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 08007
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2016

Matter of Geo-Group Communications, Inc. v. Jaina Sys. Network, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied a motion by Jaina Systems Network, Inc. to vacate an arbitrator's award and granted a petition by Geo-Group Communications, Inc. to confirm the award. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the judgment, deeming the appeal from the order as an appeal from the subsequent judgment. The court determined that CPLR article 75, New York law, was applicable to the dispute as per the parties' contract, not the Federal Arbitration Act. It was found that Jaina failed to demonstrate any grounds for vacating the award under CPLR 7511 (b), emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards. The court also upheld the arbitrator's reliance on an email acknowledging debt, concluding it was not part of settlement negotiations and thus admissible.

Arbitration AwardAppellate ReviewContract LawCPLR Article 75Vacatur of AwardConfirmation of AwardDebt AcknowledgmentSettlement NegotiationsJudicial DeferenceCommercial Dispute
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 1994

Comer v. Titan Tool, Inc.

Plaintiffs Delores Comer and Patricia Edelson, as personal representatives of Michael Comer's estate, brought a diversity action for wrongful death against Titan Tool, Inc., the manufacturer of a paint sprayer Michael Comer was using when he died. Titan Tool, Inc. then filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution from Rock & Waterscape Systems, Inc. (R&W), Comer's employer. R&W moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Florida workers’ compensation law, a death benefit payment to Delores Comer barred further liability. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules and interest analysis, found no basis for applying Florida law as R&W is a California domiciliary. The court denied R&W's motion for summary judgment, stating that triable issues remained regarding the choice of law question between New York and California, as Florida law could not control the case.

wrongful deathsummary judgmentchoice of lawdiversity jurisdictionworkers' compensationdomicileloss allocationtort lawemployer liabilityproduct liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

In re Barrier Window Systems, Inc.

Barrier Window Systems, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Barrier liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its installers. Barrier, which transitioned from installing to selling building products and arranging installations via subcontractors, argued it was not a contractor under the Fair Play Act and that its installers were independent contractors. The Board determined that Barrier continued to engage in construction by arranging installations and that the installers did not meet all three criteria of the Fair Play Act's ABC test for independent contractor status. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, thereby upholding Barrier's liability.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorWorker MisclassificationConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawABC TestEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative AppealStatutory Presumption
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04811 [208 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2022

Murphy v. 80 Pine, LLC

Daniel Murphy, an employee of Empire Office, Inc., sustained a knee injury after tripping over an electrical conduit ('stub up') at a worksite owned by 80 Pine, LLC, and managed by Rudin Management Co., Inc. He and his spouse filed a consolidated action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) against the owners, general contractor Structure Tone, Inc., and various electrical contractors including United States Information Systems, Inc. (Systems), USIS Electric, Inc. (Electric), and Bigman Brothers, Inc. (Bigman). The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Kings County, largely denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to Systems on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and certain Labor Law § 241(6) claims, and dismissing Bigman's cross-claims against Systems. It also granted summary judgment to Electric for the Labor Law § 241(6) claim predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.30, and to the owners and Structure Tone for Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. However, it affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Electric regarding Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, and for the owners and Structure Tone regarding specific Labor Law § 241(6) claims. The court also affirmed the denial of Electric's motion to dismiss Systems' cross-claim for contractual indemnification and the denial of the owners' and Structure Tone's motion for contractual indemnification against Bigman.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityCommon-Law NegligenceHazardous ConditionElectrical ConduitWorkplace SafetyAppellate ReviewIndemnification
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Protter v. Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc.

The case involves Erwin Protter and his three fast-food franchise corporations suing Nathan's Famous Systems, Inc. and its officers for fraud and Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) violations. Protter alleged misrepresentations regarding training, profit margins, and the use of IPO funds, alongside omissions of material facts such as hidden costs and sales declines in other franchises, which he claimed induced him to purchase three Nathan's franchises. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint, asserting it was time-barred and failed to state a claim. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the RICO claims with prejudice, citing plaintiffs' failure to plead a distinct enterprise from the persons, acquisition injury under §1962(b), and investment injury under §1962(a). Despite finding the allegations regarding another defrauded franchisee, Steven Lenter, potentially sufficient for an "open-ended scheme" to satisfy the pattern of racketeering requirement at the motion to dismiss stage, the specific deficiencies in the other RICO subsections led to their dismissal. Consequently, the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the lack of federal subject matter jurisdiction.

Franchise FraudRICO ViolationsRacketeering ActivityMotion to DismissFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)Fed.R.Civ.P. 9(b)Fraudulent MisrepresentationInvestment InjuryAcquisition InjuryEnterprise-Person Distinctness
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1982

Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. v. Board of Education

Parochial Bus Systems, Inc. (Parochial) contracted with the Board of Education of the City of New York (Board) to transport students. During a wildcat strike, Parochial ceased services, citing safety concerns due to violence and picketing. The Board, however, maintained that Parochial could have provided service with police protection and found alternative transportation. Parochial sought payment under a "Cessation of Service" clause, which the Board denied, also raising an affirmative defense regarding non-compliance with Education Law § 3813. The Special Term initially dismissed the defense and denied summary judgment, but the appellate court modified this, finding that Parochial did not substantially comply with its contractual obligations to "attempt" service, despite police protection offers. Ultimately, the court granted the Board's motion, dismissing both Parochial's and co-plaintiff Local 100's complaints.

Contract DisputeTransportation ServicesWildcat StrikeBreach of ContractEducation LawNotice of ClaimSubstantial ComplianceSummary JudgmentImpossibility of PerformancePicket Line
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Delphi Energy & Engine Management Systems, Inc.

Plaintiff Mortess Johnson, an African-American woman, sued her employer, DELPHI ENERGY and ENGINE MANAGEMENT SYSTEMS, INC., for racial discrimination. She alleged lower wages, lack of promotion, lower classifications, inadequate equipment and training, and being approached about retirement, unlike non-African-American employees, over her thirty-year tenure ending in 1997. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were time-barred and that she failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, as her statistical evidence alone was insufficient and she did not apply for promotions. The court granted the defendant's motion, finding plaintiff's claims regarding a continuing violation were conclusory and her reliance on statistics alone, without proof of applying for promotions, failed to overcome the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for her lack of advancement.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIContinuing Violation DoctrineStatute of LimitationsPrima Facie CaseDisparate TreatmentStatistical EvidenceFailure to Promote
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rogers v. Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc.

Ronald Rogers, while performing maintenance, fell nine feet from a stationary conveyor system at Agway Feed Mill. He and his wife, Lisa Rogers, sued Westfalia Associated Technologies, Inc. and Portee, Inc., alleging negligent design and manufacturing, failure to warn, breach of warranty, and strict products liability. Westfalia, Portee, Probec, Inc., and Mill Technology, Inc. filed motions for summary judgment, arguing they owed no duty to Rogers and their products were not defective. The court found that Agway, the employer and purchaser, was in the best position to assess risks and declined optional safety equipment. Furthermore, Rogers was aware of the dangers, and warnings were posted. Consequently, the court granted all motions for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, counterclaims, and cross-claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict LiabilityDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentConveyor SystemIndustrial AccidentAssumption of RiskOpen and Obvious Danger
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 10,729 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