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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01469
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2019

Guthorn v. Village of Saranac Lake

In this appeal, Robert Guthorn, an injured project manager, and his wife sued the Village of Saranac Lake alleging Labor Law violations. The Village, acting as a third-party plaintiff, sought contractual indemnification from Kilby & Gannon Construction Services, LLC, Guthorn's employer and a subcontractor. The core legal dispute revolved around the retroactive enforceability of an indemnification clause within a subcontractor agreement (AIA agreement) that was executed by Kilby & Gannon after Guthorn's accident but was backdated to an earlier date. Supreme Court denied the Village's cross-motion for summary judgment, citing a question of fact regarding whether the parties intended the agreement to apply retroactively. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that material issues of fact precluded summary judgment on the contractual indemnification claim.

Contractual IndemnificationRetroactive AgreementSummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsSubcontractor AgreementThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactIndemnification Clause
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

This consolidated opinion addresses the enforceability of broad indemnification agreements between general contractors and subcontractors under New York's General Obligations Law § 5-322.1, especially when the general contractor is found partially negligent. The Court reviewed two appeals: Itri Brick & Concrete Corp. v Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. and Stottlar v Ginsburg Dev. Corp. In both instances, subcontractor employees suffered injuries, leading to claims against general contractors who, in turn, sought contractual indemnification. The Court concluded that because the agreements sought full indemnification, even where the general contractor contributed to the negligence, they were entirely void and unenforceable under the statute. The legislative intent behind § 5-322.1 is to prevent contractors from contractually shifting liability for their own negligence, whether in whole or in part, to subcontractors, thereby affirming the public policy against such clauses.

Indemnification agreementGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Subcontractor liabilityGeneral contractor negligenceConstruction project injuriesWorkers' compensation insuranceCommercial general liabilityStatutory interpretationPublic policyContractual indemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between Arthur Murray, Inc. & Ricciardi

Justice Froessel dissents, advocating for the modification of the lower court's order. The petitioner seeks to stay arbitration concerning a dispute stemming from nine identical franchise agreements. Justice Froessel argues that the clear language of these agreements, coupled with the absence of a clause preventing unreasonable withholding of consent and the specific nature of the agreements, grants the petitioner the right to refuse consent to their assignment, citing several cases including Allhusen v. Caristo Constr. Corp. The dissenting opinion also asserts that the rule of good faith does not apply in this context. Consequently, it is argued that the portion of the dispute related to damages from the arbitrary withholding of consent to assignments is not arbitrable. Therefore, the orders of the court below should be modified to grant the petitioner's application to stay arbitration regarding the damages claim arising from the refusal to consent to the assignment of franchise agreements; otherwise, affirmed.

arbitration stayfranchise agreementsassignment of contractsconsent withholdingcontract interpretationgood faith rulenon-arbitrable claimsappellate reviewdissenting opinioncontractual rights
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2002

Claim of Estate of Lutz v. Lakeside Beikirk Nursing Home

The case involves an appeal by a claimant from two Workers' Compensation Board decisions concerning a waiver agreement. The decedent, Beverly Lutz, her employer, and carrier had a proposed settlement agreement that was filed but not yet approved when she died. The Board, through Commissioner Tremiti, refused to honor the agreement after the carrier and Special Funds withdrew their consent. Although an approval notice was mistakenly issued, the Board later corrected it, ruling the agreement was never approved. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board had continuing jurisdiction to correct its error and that the withdrawal of consent by the carrier and Special Funds justified the disapproval of the agreement.

Workers' CompensationSettlement AgreementWaiver AgreementDeath BenefitsBoard ReviewJurisdictionConsent WithdrawalStatutory InterpretationRegulation ValidityAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2013

Gottlieb v. Gottlieb

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal and cross-appeal concerning the enforceability of a prenuptial agreement between a wealthy plaintiff (husband) and a defendant (wife). The defendant challenged the agreement, alleging overreaching and manifest unfairness during negotiations, while the plaintiff sought its enforcement. Although the motion court granted a trial on the maintenance waiver, it dismissed other counterclaims. Justice Feinman's dissent argues that summary judgment should be denied for all counterclaims, emphasizing the need for a full trial to assess the credibility of the parties and resolve material factual disputes regarding the plaintiff's conduct during negotiations and the agreement's potentially unfair terms, particularly highlighting the distinct legal standard of 'manifest unfairness' in marital agreements.

prenuptial agreementmarital agreementsummary judgmentunconscionabilitymanifest unfairnessoverreachingfiduciary dutyequitable distributionspousal maintenance waiverproperty distribution
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2006

In Re Northwest Airlines Corp.

Northwest Airlines Corporation and its affiliates (Debtors) filed a motion under § 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code to reject a collective bargaining agreement with the Professional Flight Attendants Association (PFAA) after PFAA's membership failed to ratify a negotiated agreement. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Allan L. Gropper, found that the rejection was necessary for the Debtors' reorganization. The court also determined that PFAA rejected the Debtors' proposal without good cause and that the balance of equities clearly favored rejection. Consequently, the court authorized the Debtors to reject the agreement and implement new terms, specifically those of the March 1 Agreement, with a fourteen-day stay to allow for further negotiation. This decision aims to facilitate the airline's financial restructuring and emergence from Chapter 11.

Bankruptcy LawCollective BargainingAirline ReorganizationLabor DisputeSection 1113 MotionUnion NegotiationsFlight AttendantsWage ConcessionsWork Rule ChangesGood Cause Standard
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Forum v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal concerning the legality of an agreement made by the New York City Transit Authority (Authority) with the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU) and Amalgamated Association (Amalgamated), granting them exclusive collective bargaining rights for hourly paid employees. The Civil Service Forum, a labor union, and its members, employees of the Authority, initiated a declaratory judgment action, arguing that these exclusive rights were unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Special Term initially granted the Authority and TWU's motions to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Authority had the power under the Public Authorities Law to enter into such agreements. The court clarified that the agreement, while granting exclusive representation in grievance processing, still preserved individual employees' rights to present grievances and did not compel union membership. Ultimately, the court directed a declaratory judgment affirming the validity of the Authority's resolutions, election, agreements, and policy statements.

Labor LawCollective BargainingPublic AuthoritiesDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionGrievance ProceduresExclusive RepresentationTransit Authority
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2001

C.K. Rehner, Inc. v. Arnell Construction Corp.

C.K. Rehner, Inc. (plaintiff) sued Arnell Construction Corp. (defendant) for breach of contract. The dispute arose from a plumbing subcontractor agreement for a high school renovation project, where the defendant allegedly refused to pay the plaintiff's final invoice. The core issue was whether the plaintiff had agreed to reduce its bid price due to the New York City School Construction Authority assuming insurance costs for subcontractors. At trial, the Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the plaintiff's application for judgment as a matter of law, awarding $70,000. The appellate court reversed this judgment, finding conflicting evidence regarding the alleged agreement for an insurance credit, which necessitated a credibility determination by a jury. Therefore, the appellate court denied the plaintiff's application and remitted the matter for a new trial.

Breach of ContractSubcontractor disputeInsurance costsJudgment as a matter of lawAppellate reviewNew trial orderedConflicting evidenceCredibility determinationContract enforcementRenovation project
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Camhi & Undergarment & Negligee Workers Union, Local 62

The case involves a petitioner's motion to stay arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement. The court reversed a previous order denying the stay and granted the motion. The central issue is whether the arbitration clause extends to the petitioner's individual business operations established after leaving a partnership, rather than to obligations predating the partnership's dissolution. The majority ruled that disputes related to the petitioner's separate business are not subject to the arbitration agreement because the individual business is not represented by the trade association. A dissenting opinion argued that the broad arbitration clause should empower arbitrators to determine the scope, particularly if the union alleges deliberate circumvention of the agreement.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementStay of ArbitrationScope of ArbitrationPartnership DissolutionIndividual LiabilityTrade AssociationJudicial ReviewArbitrabilityContract Interpretation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Penn Traffic Co.

The Penn Traffic Company, a Chapter 11 debtor, sought to reject a Project Agreement with COR Route 5 Company, LLC, under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The agreement involved a land exchange, supermarket construction, and a lease-back. COR had completed all its obligations, including tendering a $3.5 million reimbursement and the signed lease, but Penn Traffic refused to accept. The court denied the motion, ruling that the Project Agreement was not an executory contract when the motion was filed, as COR had substantially performed its duties. The court emphasized that Penn Traffic's refusal to accept performance, invoking the Doctrine of Prevention of Performance, could not justify rejecting the contract as executory.

Bankruptcy LawExecutory ContractsSection 365(a)Contract RejectionSubstantial PerformancePrevention of Performance DoctrineDebtor-in-PossessionChapter 11Commercial Real EstateLand Swap
References
68
Showing 1-10 of 2,648 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