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

Black v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

James G. Black sued his employer, Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NYMO), and his union, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Union Local 310, along with their representatives, for alleged wrongs suffered in 1976. This is the third action (referred to as “Black III”) brought by Black against essentially the same defendants. The core issue revolves around Black's demotion from Chief Line Mechanic A-Hot Stick for allegedly failing to change his residence as a condition of promotion, a condition Black disputed. Black's grievance through the Union was denied, and his subsequent lawsuits (referred to as “Black I” and “Black II”) were largely unsuccessful. In “Black III”, Black alleged that the summary judgment in “Black I” was obtained by fraud through false statements in an affidavit by defendant Carl. The Court denied Black's motion to remand and granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, finding that Black had an opportunity to contest the alleged fraud in “Black I” and failed to do so. The Court also denied the defendants' request for costs, attorney's fees, and an injunction, but strongly advised Black against further litigation.

Fraud Upon The CourtRule 60(b)Summary JudgmentLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelDemotionGrievance Procedure
References
22
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2025

Matter of Black

Attorney Bernard S. Black was disbarred for professional misconduct. Serving as conservator for his sister, who suffers from chronic schizophrenia, Black attempted to divert approximately $1 million from their mother's estate to himself and his children by deliberately withholding information from the Colorado Probate Court. The Colorado courts found he breached his fiduciary duties, engaged in deceptive conduct, and committed civil theft, imposing substantial surcharges and treble damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's findings that Black violated professional conduct rules, including dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, making false statements to a tribunal, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Despite his claims of good faith and character evidence, the court found disbarment necessary due to the severe nature of his actions against a vulnerable family member.

Attorney MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsDisbarmentFiduciary Duty BreachConflict of InterestFraud and DeceitFalse Statements to TribunalConservatorshipEstate DiversionCivil Theft
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Consolidated Freightways Corp. of Delaware

This negligence action involves plaintiff James Black, a forklift operator, who sustained injuries after falling through a hole in a trailer owned by Consolidated Freightways Corporation of Delaware and leased to Freeman Decorating Company. Consolidated moved for summary judgment, arguing it lacked actual or constructive knowledge of the defect. The court first addressed Black's argument for vicarious liability under New York Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388, which was rejected because the claim against Freeman was barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, thus leaving nothing to impute. The court then examined Black's direct negligence claims against Consolidated, including constructive notice of the hole, negligent inspection, and inadequate lighting in the trailer. The court found Black's evidence insufficient to establish constructive notice, dismissed the negligent inspection claim due to lack of substantiation, and rejected the inadequate lighting claim as not being a substantial cause of the injuries given the forklift's headlights. Consequently, Consolidated's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Negligence actionSummary judgmentTrailer defectHole in floorWorkers' Compensation LawVehicle and Traffic Law § 388Constructive noticeNegligent inspectionInadequate lightingVicarious liability
References
23
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01480 [147 AD3d 668]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2017

Black v. Wallace Church Associates

In this action, plaintiff Calvin Black, a janitor, sought damages for injuries sustained when he slipped on pebbles on a bathroom floor he was hired to clean. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, which had denied the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment. The appellate court held that a maintenance or cleaning worker cannot claim injury from a dangerous condition they were employed to remedy, especially since Black frequently removed pebbles as part of his job. Consequently, the complaint against the defendants was dismissed in its entirety.

premises liabilitysummary judgmentjanitor injurydangerous conditionduty to remedyslip and fallappellate reviewNew York law
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04542
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

Carbone v. ISS Facility Servs., Inc.

Joseph Carbone, an airline employee, sued ISS Facility Services, Inc. for personal injuries after a slip and fall at JFK Airport. The parties entered into a settlement agreement for $150,000, conditional upon the defendant resolving a workers' compensation lien, which the defendant subsequently did. Carbone then refused to complete the settlement paperwork. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendant's motion to enforce the agreement. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that the settlement met CPLR 2104 requirements, contained all material terms, and evidenced mutual assent, with no valid grounds presented by the plaintiff to invalidate it.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSettlement AgreementContract EnforcementCPLR 2104Workers' Compensation LienAppellate ProcedureMutual AssentUnconscionable ContractSupreme Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2004

Singh v. Black Diamonds LLC

A construction worker sued the site owner, construction manager, and subcontractors for personal injuries sustained after falling through a roof opening. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's summary judgment motions under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6), dismissed claims against the construction manager (Bovis) under Labor Law § 200 and for common-law negligence, and made various rulings on contractual indemnification cross-claims. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, denying conditional summary judgment to the site owner (Black) on its contractual indemnification claim against the demolition subcontractor (Liberty), while otherwise affirming the orders. The court upheld that issues of fact existed regarding the adequacy of safety devices and whether the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of the accident. Additionally, Bovis's general supervision of the worksite was deemed insufficient to establish liability under Labor Law § 200.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSafety DeviceProximate CauseCommon-Law NegligenceSafe Place to WorkAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boots v. Stanley Black & Decker, Inc.

Peter and Cindy Boots filed a products liability action against Stanley Black & Decker, Inc., alleging injury to Peter Boots from a defective utility knife. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting no manufacturing defect, no design defect as the proximate cause, substantial modification of the product, and that Plaintiff's own negligence was the sole proximate cause. The court denied the motion for summary judgment on the manufacturing defect claim, finding the plaintiff's expert report admissible. It also denied summary judgment on the design defect claim due to misleading design, and rejected the substantial modification argument. Finally, the court denied the proximate cause argument, as it was not established that Plaintiff's actions were the *sole* cause of injury.

Products LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectDesign DefectProximate CauseExpert WitnessUtility KnifeStrict LiabilityProduct SafetyFederal Civil Procedure
References
38
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05081
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2023

Black v. 465 Payne Ave., LLC

Darcy M. Black, the plaintiff, sustained injuries after slipping and falling on laminate flooring in a building owned by the defendant, 465 Payne Avenue, LLC, after entering from a snow-covered sidewalk. Plaintiffs initiated legal action for damages, leading to the Supreme Court granting summary judgment in favor of the defendant. While the Appellate Division disagreed with the Supreme Court's initial reasoning that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law, it affirmed the dismissal on the alternative ground that the defendant was an out-of-possession landlord. The court determined that the defendant had transferred possession and control of the premises, with the lessee being responsible for maintenance and repairs, including snow and ice removal. The defendant's limited right to visit and approve alterations was deemed insufficient to establish the control necessary for imposing liability, and the alleged slippery condition, caused by snow and the absence of floor mats, was not considered a structural or design defect or a violation of a specific statutory safety provision. The Appellate Division concluded that the plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of fact.

Premises LiabilityOut-of-Possession LandlordSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawSlip and FallProperty OwnershipLease AgreementDuty of CareAlter Ego Doctrine
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Black v. Anheuser-Busch In Bev

Plaintiff Randall Black, a former employee of Anheuser-Busch Distributors of New York, Inc., filed a complaint asserting various claims, including breach of contract. Anheuser-Busch moved for summary judgment to dismiss Black's remaining breach-of-contract claim. The court found that Black failed to allege a valid breach of contract against Anheuser-Busch and that the claim was precluded by the "law of the case" doctrine due to a prior dismissal of a hybrid LMRA section 301 claim. Furthermore, the court determined that even if a valid claim existed, it would be time-barred by the six-month statute of limitations. Consequently, the Defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Black's breach-of-contract claim was dismissed with prejudice.

Summary judgmentbreach of contractLabor-Management Relations ActSection 301collective bargaining agreementduty of fair representationtime-barredstatute of limitationspro sewrongful termination
References
0
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04268
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Matter of State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund

This case involves an appeal by State Farm Mutual Automobile Ins. Co. against a judgment that denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had found State Farm liable for workers' compensation benefits paid by the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund to an injured driver. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, applying closer judicial scrutiny due to the statutory nature of the arbitration, affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that the arbitrator's determination had sufficient evidentiary support and was not arbitrary or capricious.

Arbitration LawAppellate PracticeWorkers' CompensationInsurance LitigationJudicial Review of ArbitrationStatutory MandateAutomobile InsuranceDenial of PetitionConfirmation of AwardDamages Recovery
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 149 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