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
Apr 07, 1993

Pennisi v. Standard Fruit & Steamship Co.

A longshoreman, having received workers' compensation benefits from his employer, International Terminal Operating Company (ITO), initiated a personal injury action against Standard Fruit & Steamship Company and Netumar Lines. Standard Fruit and Netumar subsequently filed a third-party complaint against ITO for contribution and indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted ITO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating Standard Fruit's indemnification claim against ITO due to unresolved factual questions regarding Standard Fruit's status as a 'vessel' and the existence of an indemnification contract. The court affirmed the dismissal of contribution claims, citing the LHWCA's exclusivity provision, and remitted the matter for a determination on sanctions.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsLongshoreman InjurySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimsIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintLHWCAVessel StatusContractual IndemnityImplied Indemnity
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Standard, Inc. v. Oakfabco, Inc.

American Standard, Inc. filed a declaratory judgment action in state court against OakFabeo, Inc., seeking a declaration of OakFabeo's direct liability for personal injury and product liability claims related to Kewanee boilers manufactured before 1970, and an injunction against OakFabeo disclaiming these obligations. OakFabeo removed the action to federal court, asserting diversity jurisdiction. The federal court sua sponte questioned its subject matter jurisdiction, specifically regarding the amount-in-controversy and American Standard's standing. The court concluded that American Standard lacked standing to seek declaratory relief for third-party liabilities and, more definitively, that the amount-in-controversy requirement for diversity jurisdiction was not met. Consequently, the case was remanded to the New York State Supreme Court, New York County, due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Asbestos LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAmount in ControversyStandingRemoval to Federal CourtRemand to State CourtProduct LiabilityThird-Party Liability
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2006

Toussaint v. Angello

The petitioners sought a determination that the respondent, Commissioner of Labor, violated Labor Law § 27-a (4) (b) by not adopting a safety standard recommended by the New York State Occupational Safety and Health Hazard Abatement Board. The Supreme Court denied this petition, and that decision was subsequently affirmed. The appellate court clarified that the statute does not compel the Commissioner to automatically promulgate all Board recommendations. Instead, it mandates consultation and a showing of necessity for any new standard. The Commissioner's decision to return the proposal for further review was therefore deemed a lawful exercise of authority, not arbitrary or capricious.

Labor LawSafety StandardsOccupational SafetyHazard Abatement BoardCommissioner of LaborStatutory InterpretationPromulgation of RegulationsJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawMinisterial Duty
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 1986

Claim of Mealing v. Hills

The employer and its insurance carrier appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the application of an amended Workers’ Compensation Law section. The amendment, effective 60 days after August 8, 1983, mandated that permanent partial vision loss be measured based on uncorrected vision, diverging from the previous interpretation based on corrected vision. Claimant sustained a work-related eye injury before the amendment's effective date, and under the prior standard, would not have been entitled to compensation. The Board, however, applied the new standard retrospectively, awarding benefits. The court affirmed the Board's decision, deeming the amendment remedial and intended to rectify an inequity by extending existing benefits to a class of persons previously denied.

Workers' Compensation LawVision Loss CompensationStatutory InterpretationRetroactive ApplicationRemedial StatuteUncorrected VisionCorrected VisionLegislative IntentBoard Decision AffirmedEye Injury
References
5
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07220
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2025

Cerda v. Cydonia W71, LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed a personal injury case involving Petronilo Pena Cerda, who was injured due to an unsecured plank on a scaffold. The Supreme Court had granted Cerda partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Cydonia W71, LLC and CCNY Construction Inc., and denied various summary judgment motions by the defendants and third-party defendants regarding liability and contractual indemnification. The appellate court modified the order, conditionally granting Cydonia and CCNY summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Standard Waterproofing Corp., while otherwise affirming the lower court's decision. The court found that Cerda established his prima facie burden, noting that the bicycle plank required securing, and dismissed arguments regarding plaintiff's credibility or sole proximate cause. Issues of fact concerning Standard's negligence prevented outright summary judgment on its indemnification claim against Xuntos Construction Corp.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Safe Place to WorkElevation-Related HazardScaffolding AccidentContractual IndemnificationVicarious LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewNegligenceProximate Cause
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. ITT STANDARD

Paul Smith, Jr., a former employee of ITT Standard, filed a complaint alleging wrongful discharge against ITT and a violation of the duty of fair representation against his union, United Steel Workers of America Local No. 897, AFL-CIO. Both defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court granted the Union's motion regarding the bad faith claim but denied it concerning the arbitrary conduct claim. ITT's motion for summary judgment regarding the wrongful discharge claim was also denied, meaning that triable issues of fact remain for trial concerning the arbitrary nature of the union's representation and ITT's alleged improper discharge. The case hinges on whether Smith's conduct constituted insubordination under shop rules and if the 'last chance agreement' precluded arbitration.

Workers' RightsWrongful DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationSummary JudgmentCollective Bargaining AgreementInsubordinationLast Chance AgreementShop RulesLabor LawFederal Court
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Picard

The Yard Workers Association, Inc. filed an application for approval of its certificate of incorporation with the Board of Standards and Appeals, pursuant to the Membership Corporations Law. The Board initially disapproved the application, citing inconsistencies with the Labor Law and public policy. However, in the subsequent legal proceeding, the Board argued that the certificate itself did not meet the statutory requirements for their review, as it did not explicitly state that its members were working men and women or wage earners, nor did it relate to labor conditions. The court, presided over by Bergan, J., sustained the Board's objection, concluding that the certificate did not require the Board's approval for filing. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, an outcome that would not prevent the petitioners from filing the certificate.

Corporate LawMembership Corporations LawCertificate of IncorporationBoard of Standards and AppealsStatutory InterpretationWorkers' RightsLabor OrganizationCorporate PurposeJudicial ReviewPetition Dismissal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 2008

Fisher v. New York City Board of Standards & Appeals

This case involves an appeal of an Order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which dismissed a CPLR article 78 petition. The petition sought to annul a resolution by the Board of Standards and Appeals (BSA) that granted an amendment to a 1963 zoning variance. This amendment permitted the College of St. Francis Xavier to merge its zoning lot with an adjacent lot owned by Clothing Workers Center Incorporated. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the dismissal, finding a rational basis for the BSA's determination that the modification was minor and did not create new noncompliance. Additionally, the court ruled that the BSA's approval was a ministerial action, therefore not requiring an environmental impact quality study.

Zoning VarianceCPLR Article 78Board of Standards and AppealsLot MergerEnvironmental Quality ReviewMinisterial ActionRational Basis ReviewAppellate AffirmationCollege ZoningUrban Planning
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,143 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