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

Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians & Employers' Pension Fund v. Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc.

Plaintiffs, the Trustees of the American Federation of Musicians and Employers’ Pension Fund, brought suit against Steven Scott Enterprises, Inc. seeking an audit of payroll records from 1992-1994 to verify pension fund contributions. Steven Scott moved for summary judgment, asserting that fifteen prior settlement agreements with William Moriarity, a Pension Fund Trustee and Local 802 President, fully settled all monetary claims. The court found that Steven Scott reasonably relied on Moriarity's apparent authority, and the Pension Fund's actions, including cashing checks and failing to repudiate the agreements, established equitable estoppel and ratification. Consequently, the court granted Steven Scott's motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Pension Fund was bound by the agreements and dismissing the plaintiffs' complaint.

ERISALMRAPension FundEquitable EstoppelApparent AuthorityRatificationSettlement AgreementsSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsUnion
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Mnorx, Inc.

The dissenting opinion by Judge Jones disputes the majority's affirmation of the Unemployment Insurance Board's determination that musicians were employees of the appellants. The Board's decision relied on a contractual provision granting owners 'complete supervision, direction and control' over the musicians. However, Judge Jones argues that uncontroverted evidence showed this provision was a 'fiction,' never exercised in practice, and intended solely to artificially create unemployment insurance coverage. The dissent emphasizes that the actual relationship lacked employer-employee characteristics and that parties cannot unilaterally expand the scope of the Unemployment Insurance Law through such agreements, particularly when the contractual provision was a calculated fabrication.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipMusiciansContractual ControlFictitious Contract ProvisionLabor LawDissentJudicial ReviewScope of Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2008

Vig v. New York Hairspray Co.

Plaintiff, an actor and musician, was injured during a performance of the musical Hairspray, suffering a meniscus tear requiring surgery. He alleged that despite prior approvals for medical leave, he was terminated from his employment upon his attempt to return, based on defendant's interpretation of his Actors' Equity contract, which contradicted his Musicians Union contract that guaranteed employment for the run of the show. An arbitration sided with the defendant. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his disability discrimination claims under the New York State and City Human Rights Laws. This court reversed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff had sufficiently pleaded causes of action for disability discrimination under both the State and City HRLs, and reinstated his claims.

Disability DiscriminationState Human Rights LawCity Human Rights LawEmployment LawMedical LeaveTerminationMeniscus TearActors' EquityMusicians UnionArbitration
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1996

Gateway Theatrical of Bellport, Inc. v. Associated Musicians of Greater New York

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied their motion for a protective order and granted the defendant's cross-motion to compel discovery. The discovery sought corporate financial and ownership statements and cash receipt journals for the years 1993-1995. The underlying action was for defamation, where the defendant union allegedly made false statements damaging the plaintiffs' business and reputations during a labor dispute. The appellate court affirmed the order, ruling that the requested financial documents were material and necessary to determine the extent of the plaintiffs' asserted damages, as defamation claims require proof of actual or special damages.

DefamationDiscovery DisputeProtective OrderFinancial DisclosureCorporate RecordsActual MaliceSpecial DamagesLabor RelationsAppellate ReviewCivil Procedure
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 02, 1997

Turley v. New York City Police Department

The plaintiff, a street musician, challenged New York City's regulations regarding amplifier use, music performance permits in parks, seizure of equipment, and the General Vendor Law, alleging First and Fourteenth Amendment violations. This opinion addresses post-trial motions. The court granted the City's motion to strike jury findings on selective enforcement but denied its motion for a new trial on the 75-decibel limit. Plaintiff was granted a new trial on permit fees and damages, along with prejudgment interest, and summary judgment on General Vendor Law claims. However, his motions for a new trial on individual liability and for a permanent injunction were denied.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechEqual ProtectionSound Device PermitsAmplified MusicStreet MusiciansGeneral Vendor LawRule 59 Motion for New TrialRule 60(b) Motion to VacatePrejudgment Interest
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wien v. Chelsea Theater Center

This case addresses a motion to dismiss and a cross-motion for partial summary judgment concerning a derivative action brought by plaintiff Wien, a limited partner of Chelsea-Candide Company. Wien alleges that the partnership suffered financial losses due to a collective bargaining agreement provision, influenced by defendants from Local 802, requiring unnecessary musicians. The court affirmed Wien's standing to sue under Partnership Law § 115-a. It also rejected the defendants' argument for federal pre-emption, citing significant state interests and common-law tort claims under General Business Law § 340, thus upholding state court jurisdiction. Ultimately, the court denied both the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint and the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, indicating that material issues of fact remain in dispute.

Limited PartnershipDerivative SuitFederal PreemptionLabor LawCollective BargainingAnti-trust LawDonnelly ActGeneral Business LawStanding to SueSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tomas v. Gillespie

Plaintiff Jean Bryson Tomas sued Lorraine Gillespie and Dizlo Music Corporation, seeking declaratory relief, accounting, and a constructive trust, claiming a copyright interest in works by her alleged biological father, jazz musician Dizzy Gillespie. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the three-year Copyright Act statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches. The court found that Tomas had known of the facts regarding her paternity and potential claim since childhood, thus rejecting the argument that 'uncertainty' existed to toll the statute of limitations as in the *Stone v. Williams* case. The court also rejected Tomas's arguments for equitable tolling based on alleged duress or settlement negotiations. The court concluded that Tomas's action began to accrue upon defendants' clear repudiation of her claim in 1993, making the entire action time-barred. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Copyright ActStatute of LimitationsPaternity ClaimSummary JudgmentEquitable EstoppelLachesRenewal CopyrightsDeclaratory ReliefAccountingConstructive Trust
References
28
Showing 1-8 of 8 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