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

Feltman v. Kossoff & Kossoff LLP (In re TS Emp't, Inc.)

The case involves a Chapter 11 Trustee, James S. Feltman, for TS Employment, Inc. (TSE), who filed a second amended complaint against Kossoff & Kossoff LLP and Irwin Kossoff. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Trustee's claims were barred by the Wagoner rule, which typically prevents a bankrupt corporation from suing third parties for fraud if corporate managers assisted in the fraud. The core issue is whether the defendants qualify as 'non-statutory insiders' to bypass the Wagoner rule's application. The Trustee alleged that the defendants effectively acted as TSE's CFO or Treasurer, controlling financial reporting and accounting, despite lacking formal titles. The Court, reviewing the allegations, concluded that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support the inference that the defendants were non-statutory insiders, exercising significant control over TSE's financial operations. Therefore, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the Trustee to proceed with the case.

Bankruptcy LawMotion to DismissWagoner RuleInsider ExceptionNon-Statutory InsiderFiduciary DutyCorporate ControlAccounting FraudChapter 11Trustee Standing
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2006

Smolik v. Turner Construction Co.

The plaintiff, a Kings County resident, sustained injuries at a New Jersey construction site while working for a New Jersey employer. Following initial treatment and a New Jersey workers' compensation claim, the plaintiff initiated a personal injury action in New York against Turner Construction Company and Metrovest Equities, Inc., both New York corporations with operations in New Jersey. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing New York was an inconvenient forum. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted these motions, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no improvident exercise of discretion given the lack of substantial nexus to New York.

Personal InjuryForum Non ConveniensDismissalAppealNew York CourtsNew Jersey SitusJurisdictionCPLR 327DamagesConstruction Site
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Complaint of American President Lines, Ltd.

This case involves two related limitation proceedings (the "APL Action" and the "Hanjin Action") arising from a vessel collision in Korean waters between the President Washington (owned by American President Lines, Ltd. - APL) and the Hanjin Hong Kong (chartered by Hanjin Shipping Company Ltd. and owned by Highlight Navigation Corporation). The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, presided by Judge SWEET, addressed motions concerning forum non conveniens, transfer of venue, and choice of law. The Court granted APL's motions for summary judgment, dismissing Hanjin's affirmative defenses regarding forum non conveniens and venue transfer in the APL Action, and striking (with leave to replead) Hanjin's defense concerning Korean law. Concurrently, the Court denied Hanjin's motion to dismiss the Hanjin Action on forum non conveniens grounds, concluding that the balance of private and public interest factors did not strongly favor dismissal to a foreign forum or transfer to the Western District of Washington.

Admiralty LawMaritime LawVessel CollisionLimitation of LiabilityForum Non ConveniensTransfer of VenueChoice of LawCargo ClaimsInternational ShippingKorean Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walstein v. Blank

The plaintiff, an unnamed barmaid, filed a complaint against her employer, Erna Blank, and coemployee, Boger Croudy, after sustaining injuries from an assault by Croudy during her employment. Defendant Erna Blank moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to allege that the employer did not provide workers' compensation insurance or instigated the assault. Citing the Workmen's Compensation Law, the court ruled that the plaintiff's injuries arose in the course of employment, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Consequently, the court granted the defendant Erna Blank's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissAssaultCo-employee InjuryExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityComplaint Sufficiency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bottalico v. Todd Shipyards Corp.

An employee of International Terminal Operating Co., Inc. (ITOC) sued South African Marine Corp., Ltd. and Todd Shipyards Corp. for personal injuries sustained during stevedoring operations. Todd Shipyards Corp., one of the defendants, filed a third-party complaint against ITOC, seeking contribution or indemnification for alleged negligence. ITOC moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, asserting immunity under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act (LHWCA), arguing that as a compensation-paying employer, it is shielded from such claims. The court reviewed the LHWCA's provisions, particularly the 1972 amendments to section 905(b) which limits vessel owners' rights to indemnity from employers, and precedent regarding non-vessel third parties. Ultimately, the court determined that the LHWCA immunizes compensation-paying employers from third-party claims by non-vessels, and therefore granted ITOC's motion to dismiss the third-party complaint.

LHWCAThird-Party ActionEmployer ImmunityIndemnificationContributionFederal Maritime LawNon-Vessel LiabilityStevedoringWorkers' CompensationCPLR 3211
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Hughes

This case details a long-standing litigation spanning twelve years, where the plaintiff, Trans World Airlines Inc. (TWA), sought to enter a judgment on remand from the Supreme Court. TWA aimed to amend the Supreme Court's mandate to dismiss the complaint without prejudice, particularly concerning its non-federal claims of breach of fiduciary duty, which were being held in abeyance in a Delaware Chancery Court action. The Supreme Court had previously reversed a judgment, ruling the transactions immune from antitrust laws and mandating dismissal of the complaint. TWA feared that a dismissal on the merits under Fed.R.Civ.P. 41(b) in the federal court might bar its state court claims. However, the District Court, presided over by Judge Metzner, ultimately concluded that it was bound by the Supreme Court's clear mandate to dismiss the complaint and could not unilaterally vary or amend it, even to safeguard TWA's non-federal claims, citing precedents like Calderone Enterprises Corp. v. United Artists Theatre Circuit.

Antitrust LawRemandSupreme Court MandateDismissal of ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 41(b)Pendent JurisdictionState Law ClaimsFiduciary DutyRes JudicataCollateral Estoppel
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Goidel (In Re Goidel)

Bonnie Roberts, a bus driver, sued the Goidel debtors for defamation after they accused her of sexually abusing their daughter, Tara, on a preschool bus. This accusation was investigated but no charges were brought against Roberts. The Goidels filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, staying the defamation action. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Howard Schwartzberg, found no credible evidence of sexual abuse by Roberts. Exercising discretion, the court abstained from determining the amount of Roberts' claim and lifted the automatic stay, allowing the defamation suit to proceed in New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, to judgment. The bankruptcy court will later determine if any judgment obtained by Roberts is non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(6).

DefamationBankruptcyNon-dischargeability of DebtSexual Abuse AllegationAutomatic StayAbstention DoctrineIntentional TortChapter 7Willful and Malicious InjuryState Court Action
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 6,074 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