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 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1998

Rice v. City of Cortland

Plaintiff was injured in June 1994 at a waste treatment plant in Cortland County, New York, while working for Structural Associates, Inc., the general contractor. The injury occurred during drilling operations performed by subcontractor Reith’s Hole Drilling Service, Inc., when a metal cable from a drill rig contacted overhead power lines, electrocuting the plaintiff. Plaintiff sued the City of Cortland, the plant owner, and Reith, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially made several rulings on summary judgment motions. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims against Reith, finding that Reith, as a subcontractor, lacked the authority to control the injury-producing activity. The court reversed the dismissal of plaintiff's Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against the City, establishing the City's nondelegable duty as owner to comply with specific safety regulations like 12 NYCRR 23-1.13. Additionally, Reith's motion for summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's common-law negligence claim was granted.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentSubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityWorkplace SafetyElectrocution InjuryConstruction AccidentNondelegable DutyIndustrial Code
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2000

Cooper v. Wyeth Ayerst Lederle

Plaintiff Anngela Cooper sued her former employer, American Home Products (AHP), her union (International Chemical Workers Union Local 143C), and her supervisor (Richard Dumas) for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII and state law. Cooper alleged a hostile work environment by Dumas following the end of a consensual sexual relationship, and that AHP and the Union failed to adequately address her complaints or protect her. The court granted summary judgment for AHP, dismissing all federal claims, finding the sexual harassment claim untimely and the retaliation/discrimination claims regarding the grievance process unsupported by evidence. The court also granted summary judgment for the Union, dismissing the duty of fair representation claim under Title VII, concluding that the Union's actions were not discriminatory. State law claims against AHP and Dumas were dismissed as the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.

Sex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentTitle VIIRetaliationSummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationUnion LiabilityEmployer LiabilityContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Siben v. American Airlines, Inc.

Plaintiffs Andrew Siben and Leslie Hyman Siben sued American Airlines, Inc. after their luggage was lost during their honeymoon, alleging negligence, fraudulent misrepresentation, and emotional distress. American Airlines moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the Warsaw Convention limited liability, and also sought dismissal of state law claims. The court denied partial summary judgment, finding American's baggage checks did not comply with the Convention. The motion to dismiss was granted for claims of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress, but denied for claims of fraud and negligent misrepresentation, allowing those claims to proceed.

Lost LuggageWarsaw ConventionInternational Air TravelLiability LimitationSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFraudNegligent MisrepresentationEmotional DistressAirline Negligence
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2012

Ortiz v. Lynch

This case concerns an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The central issue revolves around whether workers' compensation benefits serve as the plaintiff's exclusive remedy for injuries sustained when struck by the defendant's truck on a film set. The court found unresolved issues of fact regarding whether the parties were co-employees acting within the scope of their employment at the time of the incident, thereby precluding dismissal based on workers' compensation exclusivity. Additionally, the court determined that the plaintiff established prima facie negligence against the defendant for failing to take proper precautions while backing his truck, affirming the grant of summary judgment on liability.

Workers' CompensationScope of EmploymentCo-Employee ImmunitySummary JudgmentMotor Vehicle AccidentNegligenceComparative NegligenceFilm SetBronx County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aragona v. State

The claimant, a dock builder employed by Modern Continental Construction Co., Inc., was injured after tripping on a padeye on a work barge at the Wantagh Parkway Bridge construction site. He filed a claim against the defendant alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Court of Claims initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing all claims. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court denied summary judgment for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (1). However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claims based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2) and 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 was affirmed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor LawCommon Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationPremises LiabilityWorkplace SafetyAppellate DivisionTripping Hazard
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1975

McIntyre v. Bakers For A Democratic Union

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a libel complaint. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency or for summary judgment, and also denied dismissal against defendant Caprio for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing the action against Caprio due to lack of jurisdiction, as he was served in New Jersey and had no New York ties. The court otherwise affirmed the denial of dismissal, finding that the subject matter of the allegedly false and indiscriminately distributed pamphlets, viewed in context of opposing affidavits, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to actual malice. Justice Murphy dissented in part, arguing for dismissal against all appellants, asserting the leaflet targeted union officers, not the union, and that the alleged defamation arose from an intraunion dispute protected by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. He further contended that plaintiffs failed to show actual malice with convincing clarity, as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan.

LibelDefamationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentLabor LawUnion DisputeActual MaliceFirst AmendmentCPLRUS Code
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castillo v. Star Leasing Co.

The case involves an appeal by Cargo Connection Logistic Corp. regarding a personal injury claim. The plaintiff was injured when a freight trailer floor collapsed while transferring merchandise at a warehouse owned by Cargo Connection. The Supreme Court denied Cargo Connection's motions to dismiss the complaint under CPLR 3211(a)(1) and 3126, and for summary judgment. Cargo Connection argued that all factual issues were resolved, the plaintiff was a special employee (limiting recovery to workers' compensation), and the plaintiff failed to provide requested discovery. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that Cargo Connection failed to establish its entitlement to dismissal or summary judgment on any of the grounds raised.

Personal InjuryForklift AccidentPremises LiabilityDismissal MotionSummary JudgmentCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3126Special EmployeeWorkers' Compensation LawDiscovery Sanctions
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 15,967 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