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

Claim of Colin v. Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc.

The claimant, a for-hire driver, filed for workers' compensation benefits after an automobile accident, naming Express Private Car & Limousine Service, Inc. and Yolette Kernisan as employers. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled the claimant was an independent contractor of Express. On appeal, the court modified the Board's decision, reversing the finding that the claimant was not an employee of Yolette Kernisan and remitting the matter for further consideration regarding Kernisan's relationship with the claimant, citing an improper control standard. However, the court affirmed the Board's finding of no employment relationship with Express, supported by substantial evidence regarding drivers supplying their own vehicles and expenses, and ability to work for other companies.

Workers' CompensationEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorAutomobile AccidentRadio-Dispatched Car ServiceVehicle OwnershipControl TestRemittalAppellate ReviewLabor Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. American Express Publishing Corp.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed an action against American Express Publishing Corporation, alleging age discrimination in the termination of J. Stewart Lahey's employment, violating the ADEA. American Express moved for summary judgment, arguing Lahey had released his ADEA claim by signing an agreement for severance pay. A previous summary judgment motion was denied due to factual issues regarding the knowing and voluntary nature of the release. The court, applying factors such as Lahey's education, time to review the agreement, role in negotiation, and clarity of terms, found that while some factors favored dismissal, significant factual disputes remained. These disputes include the actual time Lahey possessed the release, whether he genuinely negotiated its terms, and the extent and understanding of the consideration received. Therefore, the court denied American Express's renewed motion for summary judgment, concluding these issues require a trial.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentVoluntary WaiverKnowing WaiverSeverance PayFactual DisputeADEAEmployee Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freeman v. Walther

Plaintiff and defendants own adjacent parcels of property in Schoharie County. A dispute arose regarding defendants' use of a pipeline across plaintiff's property to access water from a pond, a practice that had existed since at least 1964. Plaintiff commenced an action challenging defendants' claimed easement rights and seeking damages for trespass, while defendants asserted various counterclaims including express and implied easements. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to plaintiff, dismissing defendants' counterclaims, finding the express easement extinguished by common ownership and insufficient necessity for an implied easement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the express easement claims but reversed the dismissal of the implied easement and damages counterclaims, citing unresolved material issues of fact regarding the reasonable necessity of the easement.

EasementImplied EasementExpress EasementCommon OwnershipProperty DisputeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewReal PropertyPipeline AccessWater Rights
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PORT AUTHORITY OF NY AND NJ v. Allied Corp.

This Memorandum & Order addresses a motion to dismiss warranty claims in an action brought by plaintiffs against numerous asbestos product companies. Plaintiffs alleged various claims, including breach of express and implied warranties. Defendants sought dismissal of the warranty claims, asserting they were barred by the U.C.C. § 2-725 four-year statute of limitations and not revived by the "Toxic Tort Revival Act." The Court found that implied warranties could not meet the "explicit" future performance exception of U.C.C. § 2-725(2), and the alleged express warranties lacked explicit reference to future performance. Additionally, the Court ruled that the Toxic Tort Revival Act, intended for personal injury or property damage, did not apply to contract-based warranty claims. Equitable estoppel based on alleged active concealment was also rejected due to the absence of a fiduciary relationship or prevention of timely action. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth claims for breach of implied and express warranty was granted, while other tort claims remained for adjudication.

AsbestosBreach of WarrantyStatute of LimitationsUCCToxic Tort Revival ActEquitable EstoppelImplied WarrantyExpress WarrantyFuture Performance ExceptionProducts Liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1998

Walker v. Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment entered May 20, 1998, which awarded common-law indemnification to the site owner and general contractor against the plaintiff's employer, a subcontractor, in a laborer's personal injury action. The appellate court found that the trial court properly granted the posttrial motion for indemnification. This decision was based on a jury finding that the owner and general contractor were not negligent and did not direct or control the plaintiff's work, whereas the employer did. The general contractor's contractual authority to enforce general safety standards was not considered sufficient to establish requisite supervision or control of the plaintiff's specific work. Furthermore, the employer's express assumption of primary responsibility for worker safety in its subcontract was noted, and its argument regarding the jury's lack of an express ruling on the general contractor’s supervision was rejected, given that such a question was not requested and the finding of no negligence implied no supervision.

Common-law indemnificationThird-party actionPersonal injuriesLabor LawNegligenceSite owner liabilityGeneral contractor liabilitySubcontractor employerSupervision and controlWorker safety
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sulewski v. Federal Express Corp.

A cargo plane crashed in Malaysia in 1989, resulting in the death of aircraft mechanic Leonard Sulewski. The plaintiff initiated a wrongful death action against Federal Express Corporation, successor to Flying Tiger Line, alleging liability under the Warsaw Convention and common law negligence. The central legal question revolved around whether Sulewski was traveling as a passenger or an on-duty employee at the time of the crash. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment, presenting arguments regarding Sulewski's employment status and the applicability of the Convention. The court found no genuine dispute of material fact, concluding that Sulewski was an on-duty employee, not a passenger, and therefore the Warsaw Convention did not apply. The defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted.

Wrongful DeathWarsaw ConventionSummary JudgmentAirline LiabilityEmployee StatusPassenger StatusInternational TransportationAircraft MechanicScope of EmploymentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Rehab Plus Inc.

Keith Henry sued Rehab Plus, Inc., for injuries sustained while wearing a back support belt manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff alleged negligence, strict products liability, breach of implied warranty, breach of express warranty, and unfair and deceptive trade practices. The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted summary judgment for Rehab Plus on the breach of express warranty and unfair and deceptive trade practices claims, finding a lack of evidence for an express warranty and no misleading conduct. However, the court denied summary judgment on the negligence, strict products liability, and breach of implied warranty claims. It determined that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding the defendant's duty to warn foreseeable users about latent dangers associated with the back support belt and whether the product was fit for its ordinary purpose, thereby precluding summary dismissal of those claims.

Product LiabilityNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantySummary JudgmentFailure to WarnProduct DefectBack Support BeltIndustrial SafetyDuty to Warn
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2008

Borrero v. American Express Bank Ltd.

Plaintiff Catalina Borrero sued her former employer, American Express Bank, Ltd. (AEB), alleging gender discrimination and retaliation under federal, state, and city laws. AEB moved for summary judgment. The court, presided over by Judge Chin, granted summary judgment in part, dismissing Title VII claims occurring before May 12, 2004, due to statute of limitations. However, summary judgment was denied for remaining Title VII disparate treatment claims, Equal Pay Act (EPA) claims, retaliation claims, and analogous state and city law claims, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding Circle's actions, wage disparity, and constructive discharge. A pretrial conference is scheduled for February 15, 2008.

Gender discriminationRetaliationTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSummary judgmentConstructive dischargeHostile work environmentWage discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allan v. DHL Express (USA), Inc.

The plaintiff, an employee of Structural Preservation Systems (SPS), was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while performing structural repairs in a building owned by 500 Lincoln, LLC and leased by DHL Express (USA), Inc. The plaintiff commenced an action against both entities, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln and denied DHL's motions for summary judgment to dismiss various claims against it. On appeal, the court modified the Supreme Court's decision, determining that DHL should have been granted summary judgment dismissing all Labor Law and common-law negligence claims against it, as DHL neither directed nor controlled the work. The court also found that the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) against 500 Lincoln should have been denied due to triable issues of fact regarding proximate cause and the availability of adequate safety devices.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentScaffold FallSummary JudgmentLiabilityIndemnificationProximate CauseSafe Place to WorkOwner LiabilityLessee Liability
References
29
Case No. 3041 0151
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of West v. Titan Express, Inc.

The claimant appealed a November 6, 2012 decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that denied a variance request for certain medical injections. While the appeal was pending, the Board issued an amended decision in April 2013, superseding the original but reaching the same ultimate conclusion. The Court determined that the Board acted within its statutory authority in issuing the amended decision, as the appeal had not yet been perfected and no prejudice resulted. However, because the amended decision superseded the initial one, the Court found the pending appeal moot. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed without costs.

Workers' Compensation LawMedical VarianceWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionMootness DoctrineBoard JurisdictionAmended DecisionProcedural IssuesClaimant AppealTitan Express Inc.
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 3,437 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