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

In Re Penn Traffic Co.

The Penn Traffic Company, a Chapter 11 debtor, sought to reject a Project Agreement with COR Route 5 Company, LLC, under Section 365(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. The agreement involved a land exchange, supermarket construction, and a lease-back. COR had completed all its obligations, including tendering a $3.5 million reimbursement and the signed lease, but Penn Traffic refused to accept. The court denied the motion, ruling that the Project Agreement was not an executory contract when the motion was filed, as COR had substantially performed its duties. The court emphasized that Penn Traffic's refusal to accept performance, invoking the Doctrine of Prevention of Performance, could not justify rejecting the contract as executory.

Bankruptcy LawExecutory ContractsSection 365(a)Contract RejectionSubstantial PerformancePrevention of Performance DoctrineDebtor-in-PossessionChapter 11Commercial Real EstateLand Swap
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cruz v. Regent Leasing Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff Roberto Cruz commenced an action against Regent Leasing Limited Partnership for personal injuries sustained during a slip and fall. Cruz, a superintendent, was an employee of Mid-State Management Corp., hired by Regent Leasing to manage the property. Defendant Regent Leasing moved for summary judgment, arguing that the exclusivity of workers' compensation benefits precluded the action, suggesting plaintiff should be deemed their employee. The court denied the motion, finding no employer-employee or co-employer relationship between Cruz and Regent Leasing. The decision clarified that merely hiring an employer to manage premises does not establish an employer-employee relationship within the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Slip and FallPersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipCo-EmployerManaging AgentLandowner LiabilityPremises Liability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2005

County of Suffolk v. Coram Equities, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to compel the defendant to pay prevailing hourly wage rates for a building construction project. The case stemmed from a lease agreement where the defendant, as owner, agreed to construct a building and lease space to the plaintiff, including a clause for prevailing wages "in accordance with New York Labor Law Section 220." Both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that Labor Law § 220 did not apply to the project. The courts reasoned that the construction did not qualify as a "public works project," a necessary condition for the application of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the defendant's failure to pay prevailing wages was not a breach of the contractual agreement.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works DoctrineLease Contract DisputeLabor Law 220Contractual ObligationAppellate AffirmationConstruction WagesSuffolk County CourtsNew York State LawSpecific Performance Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sanders v. Gold Key Lease, Inc.

Plaintiff Stacy Sanders filed a class action lawsuit against Gold Key Lease, Inc. and other defendants, alleging violations of the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and state laws. Sanders claimed that the defendants failed to disclose that interest earned on a refundable security deposit constituted a finance charge in her lease agreement. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that Sanders' lease was not covered by TILA because her total contractual obligation exceeded the statutory $25,000 limit. The court agreed with the defendants, finding that the plaintiff's total contractual obligation surpassed $25,000, thereby exempting the lease from TILA's disclosure requirements. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all federal claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing the case without prejudice.

Consumer LeasingTruth in Lending ActTILASecurity DepositFinance Charge DisclosureMotion to DismissSupplemental JurisdictionContractual Obligation LimitClosed-End LeaseFederal Court
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1987

Promovision Video Display Corp. v. Intech Leasing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal where Promovision Video Display Corporation sued Intech Leasing Corporation for breach of contract and fraud. The dispute arose from a series of integrated agreements, including a sales agreement with an arbitration clause between Promovision and Fujitsu Systems of America, Inc., and a financing agreement between Promovision and Intech. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied Intech's motion to compel arbitration and granted Promovision's cross-motion to stay arbitration. The appellate court reversed this order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and that the arbitration clause, incorporated by reference into the financing agreement, governed the claims between Promovision and Intech. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration, and the action was stayed.

ArbitrationBreach of ContractFederal Arbitration ActIntegrated ContractsAssignmentFinancing AgreementSales AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ActionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Castro v. Salem Truck Leasing, Inc.

The defendants, Salem Truck Leasing, Inc., and Jose E. Cofresi, appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff was a passenger in a truck operated by Cofresi and owned by Salem, and both were co-employees involved in an accident during their employment. The appeals court modified the order, granting summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Cofresi, citing Workers' Compensation Law co-employee immunity. However, the court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for Salem Truck Leasing, Inc., as a triable issue of fact existed regarding Salem's alleged independent negligence in maintaining the truck.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawCo-employee ImmunityVehicle AccidentTruck LeasingNegligenceAppellate ReviewMotion PracticeKings County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 1985

Linares v. Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp.

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Time Moving and Storage (employer) and Spencer-Cameron Leasing Corp. (vehicle lessor), in a personal injury action. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law provided the plaintiff's exclusive remedy against both the employer and the vehicle owner, as the injury occurred while the plaintiff was a passenger in an employer-leased vehicle driven by a co-employee. The court also affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion to amend the complaint and bill of particulars, citing the significant delay (nearly four years after inception of the lawsuit) and completion of all discovery.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyCo-employee NegligenceLeased Vehicle LiabilityAppellate AffirmationMotion to Amend PleadingsBill of ParticularsDelay in Litigation
References
5
Case No. 6784-17
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2018

Vincent Crisafulli Testamentary Trust v. AAI Acquisition, LLC

Plaintiff Vincent Crisafulli Testamentary Trust brought an action against AAI Acquisition, LLC and United Electric Power, Inc. to enforce the terms of an alleged commercial lease and guarantee. Plaintiff sought to recover money damages for breach of a Letter Agreement and a Guaranty, and also under an assumed Lease. The Supreme Court, Albany County, granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the first cause of action, finding the Letter Agreement a valid and binding contract and awarding $193,350.23 in damages. However, the motion for summary judgment on the second cause of action (breach of Guaranty) was denied, as the court found the record insufficiently developed to establish United Inc.'s liability. The third cause of action, concerning the assumed Lease, was dismissed because the Letter Agreement superseded the original Lease.

Contract LawCommercial LeaseSummary Judgment MotionBreach of ContractGuaranty AgreementStatute of FraudsCondition PrecedentDamages AwardCounsel FeesCorporate Liability
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2021

Matter of Gaylord v. Buffalo Transp., Inc.

Claimant Kevin Gaylord, a bus driver for Buffalo Transportation, Inc., sustained multiple injuries after being struck by a car. Buffalo Transportation had a personnel leasing agreement with Southeast Personnel Leasing, Inc. (SPLI), a professional employer organization, which procured a workers' compensation policy from State National Insurance Company, Inc. State National controverted Gaylord's claim, arguing he was not a covered worksite employee. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that SPLI was statutorily obligated to provide coverage and State National was the proper carrier. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that SPLI was a co-employer and the State National policy covered Gaylord, as it did not clearly exclude him.

Workers' CompensationProfessional Employer OrganizationPEOCo-employmentInsurance Coverage DisputeStatutory ObligationAppellate ReviewCarrier LiabilityLease AgreementBus Driver Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 2,596 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