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

Hull-Hazard, Inc. v. Roberts

Justice Levine dissents from the majority's decision, which annulled the respondent's determination that held Hull Corporation jointly liable with Hull-Hazard, Inc., for violations of Labor Law § 220. Levine argues for a liberal construction of Labor Law § 220, citing its remedial and protective purposes for workers' rights. He emphasizes the extensively interlocking relationship between Hull Corporation and Hull-Hazard, Inc., highlighting shared ownership, officers, managerial staff, and employee benefit plans. According to Levine, Hull Corporation, as a successor employer, should not be permitted to evade liability given its clear knowledge and use of Hull-Hazard's resources, drawing parallels to federal labor law on successor liability. He concludes that the imposition of joint liability was rational and should have been confirmed. The overall determination was modified by annulling the finding of a willful violation of Labor Law § 220 (2) and the joint liability of Hull Corporation, and then confirmed as modified.

Joint LiabilitySuccessor EmployerLabor Law ViolationsCorporate InterlockingDissenting OpinionConcurring OpinionRemedial LegislationUnfair Labor PracticesAnnulment of DeterminationWillful Violation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Equality Specialities

Plaintiff Bonnie Hayes initiated an action against Equality Specialties, Inc., MNC Stribbons Inc., and MNC Sourcing Solutions, Inc., asserting claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 190-99, stemming from the termination of her employment by Equality. Her claims against MNC entities were predicated on a theory of successor liability for Equality's alleged wrongs. MNC moved for summary judgment, contending that Hayes failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding successor liability. The Court evaluated Hayes's arguments for de facto merger, implied assumption of liabilities, and fraud, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to establish any of these exceptions to the general rule against successor liability. Consequently, the Court granted MNC's motion for summary judgment, ordering Hayes to pursue a default judgment against Equality or dismiss the action.

Successor LiabilitySummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitWage ClaimsDe Facto MergerAsset Sale AgreementCorporate Law
References
10
Case No. 09-CV-4253
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2012

Lyons v. Rienzi & Sons, Inc.

Plaintiff Kelly Lyons, a seafarer, sued Rienzi & Sons, Inc. after allegedly slipping and falling on the deck of the yacht 'Brianna' due to a design defect, asserting claims under the Jones Act and general maritime law. Rienzi then filed a third-party complaint against the yacht's manufacturer, Genmar Yacht Group, LLC, and its alleged successor, Marquis Yachts, LLC, for product liability. Lyons subsequently brought his own claims against the third-party defendants. Marquis moved for summary judgment, contending it was not directly liable and had not assumed Genmar's liabilities due to an asset purchase in bankruptcy. The court granted Marquis's motion, finding that successor liability principles under federal common law and New York law did not apply, thereby dismissing claims against Marquis.

Successor LiabilityAdmiralty LawJones ActProducts LiabilityBankruptcy SaleSummary JudgmentFederal Common LawDe Facto MergerMere Continuation DoctrineForum Selection Clause
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Battino v. Cornelia Fifth Avenue, LLC

This is a collective action for unpaid wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and a class action for violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA) and New York state labor laws. Defendant Michael Cañizales filed a motion for partial summary judgment seeking to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint against him and cross-claims by co-defendants (Cornelia Defendants). The Court denied Cañizales' motion regarding his potential joint and several liability under FLSA, adopting the broader ''substantial continuity'' test for successor liability in FLSA cases. However, the Court granted his motion to dismiss the New York labor law and common law claims against him due to a lack of successor liability. Additionally, Cañizales' motion to dismiss the Cornelia Defendants' cross-claims for indemnification against him was granted, as the cross-claimants failed to provide sufficient evidence to pierce the corporate veil and hold him personally liable for SCFAL's obligations.

FLSAERISAUnpaid WagesSuccessor LiabilityPartial Summary JudgmentCorporate Veil PiercingEmployment LawAsset Purchase AgreementJoint and Several LiabilityClass Action
References
49
Case No. 71 Civ 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Local 638

The plaintiff, EEOC, brought an Order to Show Cause alleging that Local 28 of the Sheet Metal Workers’ International Association and its Joint Apprenticeship Training Committee (Local 28 JAC) were successors in interest to Local 10 and Local 10 JAC. The EEOC contended that Local 10 and Local 10 JAC had violated a 1973 federal district court order prohibiting discrimination against Black and Puerto Rican individuals. A Special Master was appointed and found that Local 28 was indeed the successor in interest to Local 10. The District Court affirmed the Special Master's finding, concluding that successor liability attached to Local 28. This decision was based on several key factors: the formal merger of Local 10 into Local 28, the substantial continuity of the business enterprise, Local 28's prior notice of Local 10's liabilities and the existing judicial order, and the overarching importance of federal policies, including upholding federal court judgments and promoting equal opportunity.

Successorship DoctrineLabor LawEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIIUnion MergerJudicial Order EnforcementRacial DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationSpecial Master FindingsFederal Policy
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Loblaw, Inc. v. Employers' Liability Assurance Corp.

Loblaw, Inc., a self-insured retail chain, sued its excess insurer, Employers’ Liability Assurance Corporation, for reimbursement under a workers’ compensation policy. The dispute centered on whether Loblaw timely notified Employers’ of an employee's escalating injury claim. Loblaw initially believed the claim would not exceed its $25,000 self-retention, delaying notice until June 1972, despite warnings from its agent and mounting costs. The Supreme Court, Erie County, initially sided with Loblaw, but the Appellate Division reversed, ruling Loblaw had an ongoing obligation to notify the insurer and was derelict by May 1969. This court affirmed the Appellate Division's dismissal of Loblaw's complaint, holding that the notice given in June 1972 was too late as a matter of law, given the claim had exceeded $21,000 by December 1970.

Insurance policy interpretationWorkers' compensationExcess insuranceNotice provisionSelf-insurerTimely noticeAppellate reviewContract constructionObjective standardSubjective judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fuentes v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an appeal by the Special Fund for Reopened Cases from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision dated November 15, 2006. The Board had transferred liability for a claimant's 1998 work-related back injury to the Special Fund, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Special Fund argued that certain payments made to the claimant in late 2005, between November 30 and December 17, were advance payments of compensation, which would preclude the transfer of liability. However, the Board found that these payments were charged to the claimant's accumulated sick leave and did not constitute advance payments of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's finding, concluding that the sick leave payments did not prevent the transfer of liability to the Special Fund because they were not made voluntarily in recognition of employer liability, and thus, the criteria for transferring liability to the Special Fund were met.

Special Fund for Reopened CasesWorkers' Compensation Law Section 25-aAdvance Payments of CompensationSick Leave PlanLiability TransferStale ClaimApplication to Reopen ClaimWork-Related InjuryBack InjuryTreating Physician Report
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Liability Ins. v. Mountain Valley Indemnity Co.

This diversity action involves an insurance dispute between plaintiffs United States Liability Insurance Co. (U.S. Liability) and Mobile Air Transport, Inc., and defendant Mountain Valley Indemnity Co. The conflict arose from a fatal truck accident involving a Mobile Air employee driving a truck leased from Leroy Holding Company, Inc. After an underlying personal injury action settled, U.S. Liability and Mountain Valley each paid $225,000 towards the remaining $450,000 portion of the settlement. The core disagreement is whether the Truck Lease Agreement, which designates Mobile Air's insurance as primary, or the specific 'other insurance' clauses within U.S. Liability's and Mountain Valley's respective policies, which would make Mountain Valley's coverage primary, should govern. Applying New York law, the court ruled that the insurance policy provisions take precedence over the lease agreement. Consequently, U.S. Liability's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Mountain Valley's cross-motion was denied, holding Mountain Valley liable for the entire $450,000 in dispute.

Insurance DisputePrimary vs Excess CoverageTruck Lease AgreementInsurance Policy InterpretationSummary JudgmentNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionIndemnificationSubrogationAutomobile Accident
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 07, 2000

Subramani v. Bruno Machinery Corp.

The plaintiff was injured while using a die cutting press manufactured by T.W. & C.B. Sheridan Company (Old Sheridan). Old Sheridan later sold its assets to HarrisIntertype Corporation, which formed a new subsidiary, New Sheridan, and eventually merged it. Harris then sold assets to Bruno Sherman Corp. The plaintiff sought to hold Harris and Bruno liable under successor tort liability. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding no recognized exceptions to the general rule against successor liability. This decision was unanimously affirmed, with the court rejecting claims of de facto merger, mere continuation, or the product line rule, and finding no special relationship to impose a duty to warn.

successor liabilitystrict products liabilitysummary judgmentasset purchasecorporate mergercorporate acquisitionproduct defectduty to warntort lawdie cutting press
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 1995

Rigopoulos v. State

Dimitrios Rigopoulos, an independent contractor, sustained injuries while painting a bridge from a floating barge. He and his wife, Victoria Rigopoulos, brought a claim for personal injuries against the State of New York, alleging violations of the Labor Law. The Court of Claims initially awarded damages to the claimants and granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the judgment was reversed. The appellate court ruled that the accident occurred on navigable waters and constituted traditional maritime activity, thus Federal maritime law applied. Consequently, Labor Law § 240 (1), which imposes strict liability, was preempted. The case was remitted to the Court of Claims for a new determination on liability under Labor Law § 200 (1) and § 241 (6), which do not impose strict liability and are not preempted by Federal maritime law.

Personal InjuryFederal Maritime LawLabor Law PreemptionStrict LiabilityNegligenceAppellate ProcedureSummary JudgmentDamages AwardRemandBridge Maintenance
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 3,751 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