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. 2022 NY Slip Op 06887 [211 AD3d 432]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 06, 2022

Lively v. Wafra Inv. Advisory Group, Inc.

The plaintiff, Francis P. Lively, appealed an order that dismissed his complaint against Wafra Investment Advisory Group, Inc. and Fawaz Al-Mubaraki. Lively, a former senior managing director, alleged age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws after being terminated due to sexual harassment complaints. The court affirmed the dismissal, finding that Lively failed to sufficiently allege age discrimination or a causal connection for retaliation. Additionally, his claims for tortious interference, defamation, negligence, unjust enrichment, and quantum meruit were also found to be inadequately pleaded or barred by other laws. The Second Circuit's prior dismissal of federal claims did not, however, preclude state law claims based on collateral estoppel.

Age DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawHuman Rights LawCollateral EstoppelWrongful TerminationTortious InterferenceDefamationUnjust EnrichmentQuantum Meruit
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wheeler v. Grande'Vie Senior Living Community

Plaintiff John A. Wheeler suffered injuries after slipping on ice and falling in the parking lot of defendant's assisted living facility while helping his mother-in-law move during a snowstorm. The area where he fell had been shoveled, but ice was present beneath a thin layer of snow. Wheeler and his wife initiated a personal injury action, which the Supreme Court dismissed by granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment, citing the "storm in progress" doctrine. On appeal, the higher court affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to establish that the defendant's snow removal efforts created a hazardous condition or exacerbated the natural hazards of the storm. Furthermore, the court found no duty to warn of icy conditions during an ongoing storm under the specific circumstances, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Personal InjurySlip and FallPremises LiabilityStorm in Progress DoctrineSummary JudgmentLandowner DutySnow RemovalIceNegligenceAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02680
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2022

Finocchi v. Live Nation Inc.

Carmen J. Finocchi, Jr. sustained injuries while manually loading rigging equipment, leading to a lawsuit against Live Nation Inc. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, ruling that Finocchi's failure to use an available forklift was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court found that Finocchi's choice not to use a forklift could not be deemed the sole proximate cause, particularly as he was instructed to lift the equipment manually. The court also affirmed that the work performed fell under the coverage of Labor Law § 240 (1), reinstating the claim, granting judgment on liability to the plaintiffs, and remitting for a new trial solely on the issue of damages.

LiabilityWorkplace SafetyForkliftManual LiftingAppellate ReviewProximate CauseComparative FaultInjuryDemolition WorkStage Rigging
References
20
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. 95CV656
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2004

Independent Living Aids, Inc. v. Maxi-Aids, Inc.

This case involves plaintiffs Independent Living Aids, Inc. and Marvin Sandler suing Maxi-Aids, Inc. and others for trademark infringement. A preliminary injunction was issued in April 2002, prohibiting defendants from using "Independent Living Aids." The plaintiffs moved to hold defendants in contempt for violating this injunction, specifically regarding search engine notifications and the use of the phrase on their "Affiliate Corner" page, and also for using the lower-case version of the phrase. Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended finding contempt for the "Affiliate Corner" use and imposing a $502.80 compensatory sanction, but denied contempt for search engine notification and lower-case usage. Judge Spatt adopted Judge Lindsay's report and recommendation in its entirety, affirmed the $502.80 sanction, and denied the plaintiffs' request for higher coercive sanctions and attorney's fees, finding the defendants' non-compliance was not willful and compliance had since occurred.

ContemptTrademark InfringementPreliminary InjunctionSanctionsCompensatory DamagesCoercive SanctionsAttorney's FeesCivil ProcedureSearch EnginesIntellectual Property
References
30
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

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,381 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