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

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Integrated Construction Services, Inc. (Integrated) purchased a commercial general liability policy from Scottsdale Insurance Company (Scottsdale). Integrated received delayed and initially incorrect notifications about a worker's injury. After clarifying details, Integrated notified Scottsdale, which denied coverage citing late notice. Integrated then filed a declaratory judgment action to compel Scottsdale to defend and indemnify it. Scottsdale's motion to dismiss the complaint was denied by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the order denying dismissal was affirmed, as Integrated adequately pleaded reasonable delay and Scottsdale's documentary evidence was insufficient to refute the claim.

Commercial General LiabilityInsurance PolicyDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyLate NoticeDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(1)CPLR 3211(a)(7)Documentary Evidence
References
10
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06969 [211 AD3d 1194]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2022

Integrity Intl., Inc. v. HP, Inc.

Plaintiff, Integrity International, Inc., doing business as Tarrenpoint, sued defendants, HP, Inc., for breach of service agreements dating from 1994 to 2016, primarily concerning defendants' alleged failure to make timely payments and pay late fees. The Supreme Court partially granted defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing claims for breach of contract and breach of the implied duty of good faith and fair dealing as time-barred, and also dismissing claims for late fees, finding them not contemplated by the agreements. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal regarding late fees and the timeliness of breach of contract claims. However, the Appellate Division found triable issues of fact concerning whether defendants breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by diverting clients and workers. The court also held that limitation of liability clauses in the agreements were enforceable, precluding consequential damages but allowing for the recovery of general damages.

Contract DisputeTimely PaymentLate FeesSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsImplied CovenantGood Faith and Fair DealingLimitation of LiabilityConsequential DamagesGeneral Damages
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2007

Canal Carting, Inc. v. City of New York Business Integrity Commission

Petitioners Canal Carting, Inc. and Canal Sanitation, Inc., long-standing private sanitation businesses, challenged the Business Integrity Commission's (BIC) denial of their license renewals. The BIC cited Canal's knowing failure to provide required documentation, inability to demonstrate eligibility, and two violations for illegal dumping and operating an illegal transfer station. Canal argued the findings were arbitrary, capricious, and unprecedented, insisting their financial issues were unrelated to organized crime, which Local Law 42 (governing BIC) aimed to combat. The court found no due process violation regarding a formal hearing but concluded that the BIC's denial, effectively closing Canal's 50-year business for what amounted to poor business management, was arbitrary, unduly harsh, and shocking to one's sense of fairness. Consequently, the court granted the petition, annulled the BIC's denial, and remanded the case for reconsideration.

License RenewalAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingBusiness Integrity CommissionTrade Waste IndustryDue ProcessArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewLocal Law 42Financial Responsibility
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.

Elfriede Mayer sued Oil Field Systems Corp. (OFS) and Integrated Energy Inc. (Integrated) alleging securities and common law fraud. Mayer, a limited partner in Mark Energy Partnerships (MEP), claimed misallocation of Integrated stock and insufficient disclosure regarding its arbitrary $10/share valuation, which affected partnership payouts. She also asserted misleading statements about an underwriter and stock performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Mayer was not deceived. The court found that Mayer had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly withheld, including the arbitrary stock valuation and the method of determining payout, through various disclosures provided by OFS and Integrated. Concluding that no deception occurred, a prerequisite for federal securities claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, also declining jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudLimited PartnershipStock ValuationSummary JudgmentMisallocation of SharesDisclosure RequirementsMaterial FactFiduciary DutyFederal Securities Laws
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 1997

Boss v. Integral Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court modified a prior order, granting partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Integral Construction Corporation. The plaintiff was injured while installing windows without safety devices, attributing the fall to an elevation differential, which falls under the purview of Labor Law § 240 (1). The court found Integral liable for failing to provide necessary safety equipment. Regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, the court determined that only Industrial Code regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (e) (2), pertaining to debris, was applicable, as the plaintiff tripped on sheetrock. However, issues of fact concerning Integral's responsibility for the sheetrock placement and control over workplace safety prevented summary judgment on negligence and indemnification claims.

Labor Lawsummary judgmentliabilitysafety deviceselevation differentialIndustrial Codenegligenceindemnificationconstruction accidentwindow installation
References
15
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 09632 [134 AD3d 648]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 29, 2015

Bonaerge v. Leighton House Condominium

Plaintiff Linares Bonaerge was injured when a steel structure being lowered by coworkers slipped and struck him. The court affirmed a judgment granting contractual indemnification claims from Leighton House Condominium and Cooper Square Realty against Integrated Construction Services, Inc., and from Integrated against Rockledge Scaffold Corp. The court also affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Leighton and Integrated, finding a causal connection between the inadequately regulated descent of the object and the plaintiff's injury, and rejecting arguments of de minimis height differential or plaintiff's sole proximate cause.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScaffold LawFalling ObjectStatutory AgentProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Anayansi Blanchard v. Integrated Food Systems

Claimant, a 16-year-old, was shot during an armed robbery at her drive-thru window job after her supervisor allegedly kept her working past lawful hours. She contended that her employer intentionally and recklessly placed her in mortal peril, seeking to have her claim placed outside the exclusive liability limitations of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The Workers’ Compensation Board found that her injury arose out of and in the course of her employment, and the employer's act of requiring her to work past lawful hours for minors did not constitute an exception to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that there was no evidence of willful intent to harm the claimant, even if the supervisor's conduct amounted to gross negligence or recklessness.

Workers' CompensationExclusive LiabilityIntentional TortEmployer NegligenceMinor EmploymentArmed RobberySupervisor ConductGross NegligenceRecklessnessWillful Intent
References
4
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01591 [225 AD3d 1077]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2024

Matter of Kaminski v. Integrated Structures Corp.

Zygmunt Kaminski, a construction worker, sustained catastrophic injuries in 2015, leading to a workers' compensation claim. He was found permanently totally disabled and authorized 24-hour home health care by the Workers' Compensation Board in prior decisions. The employer and carrier later sought to reduce this care, but a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board denied their request, applying the doctrine of res judicata (collateral estoppel) as the issue was previously litigated and decided. The Board also found that the carrier failed to demonstrate a material improvement in Kaminski's condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concurring that the issue of 24-hour home health care was barred from relitigation as it had been fully and fairly decided in prior proceedings from which no appeal was taken.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Total DisabilityHome Health CareRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelAppellate ReviewIndependent Medical ExaminationActivities of Daily LivingEmployer and CarrierAdministrative Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1997

Murtha v. Integral Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, an electrician, was injured by falling debris at a construction site due to drilling by Integral Construction Corp., the general contractor, directly above an unblocked basement area with no warnings. Plaintiff initially filed a negligence claim, later specifying violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6). The IAS Court dismissed the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims. The appellate court reversed, finding the Labor Law § 200 claim adequately asserted despite its late inclusion in the bill of particulars, as it codified common-law negligence. Furthermore, the court sustained the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, accepting the plaintiff's identification of specific regulatory violations (12 NYCRR 23-3.3 (g) and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a) (1)) in opposition to the summary judgment motion, concluding that the allegations constituted clear violations of these safety commands.

Construction accidentFalling debrisLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-law negligenceSummary judgmentAppellate reversalWorker safetyNYCRR regulationsPremises liability
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 362 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