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

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 2006

Superior Ice Rink, Inc. v. Nescon Contracting Corp.

The plaintiff contracted with Nescon Contracting Corp. for painting services and required to be named an additional insured under Nescon's liability policy. Nescon's insurance broker, Seigerman-Mulvey Company, Inc., issued a certificate indicating plaintiff was an additional insured, but the insurer, Merchants Mutual Insurance Company, later disclaimed coverage after workers were injured on the plaintiff's premises. The plaintiff sued Seigerman-Mulvey for breach of contract, alleging third-party beneficiary status. The Supreme Court denied Seigerman-Mulvey's motion to dismiss the complaint. However, the appellate court reversed, granting the motion to dismiss, holding that the plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Seigerman-Mulvey, was owed no duty by them, and failed to establish itself as an intended third-party beneficiary or demonstrate fraud, collusion, or other special circumstances for recovery.

Breach of ContractInsurance Broker LiabilityThird-Party BeneficiaryMotion to DismissAdditional InsuredPrivity of ContractAppellate ReviewInsurance Coverage DisclaimerCPLR 3211(a)(7)Pecuniary Loss
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. v. RFD 55th Street LLC

Plaintiff A&V 425 LLC Contracting Co. sought to foreclose upon 76 mechanic’s liens filed against condominium units and asserted claims for breach of contract and quasi-contractual remedies. The defendants, including RFD 55th Street LLC and individual unit owners, moved to discharge the liens and dismiss the causes of action. The court granted the motion to dismiss all four causes of action. The mechanic's liens were found invalid under Lien Law § 13 (5) as the deeds of conveyance to third-party purchasers contained the required trust fund provision and were recorded before the liens were filed. The breach of contract claim against non-parties was dismissed due to lack of privity and insufficient allegations for piercing the corporate veil. The quasi-contractual claims were also dismissed as a valid written contract existed covering the disputed subject matter.

Mechanic's LiensLien LawMotion to DismissBreach of ContractQuasi-ContractQuantum MeruitUnjust EnrichmentCorporate Veil PiercingPrivity of ContractConstruction Law
References
17
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. action No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

U.W. Marx, Inc. v. Koko Contracting, Inc.

Koko Contracting, Inc., a subcontractor, ceased work on a school construction project after U.W. Marx, Inc., the general contractor, failed to make three successive progress payments. Marx declared Koko in default and terminated the contract. In action No. 2, the Supreme Court found in favor of Koko, ruling that Marx's failure to pay was a material breach of contract. Marx and its surety, Continental Casualty Company, appealed, arguing Koko's recovery was precluded by its failure to provide seven days' written notice before suspending work as required by the subcontract. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that Marx's prior material breach relieved Koko from its obligation to strictly comply with the notice provision, as the clause was primarily for the subcontractor's benefit regarding remobilization costs.

Construction ContractMaterial BreachNonpaymentSubcontractorGeneral ContractorAppealNotice to CureSuspension of WorkContract PerformanceContractual Obligations
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. 15918/93, 19316/93
Regular Panel Decision

Stein v. Yonkers Contracting, Inc.

This case involves two personal injury actions brought by Ronald Stein, an employee of Rice Mohawk, against Yonkers Contracting, Inc. and the New York City Department of Transportation. Yonkers Contracting, as a third-party plaintiff, appealed parts of two Supreme Court orders: one denying its motion for summary judgment on a third-party complaint for indemnity and contribution, and another precluding its counsel from trial. The appeals by the New York City Department of Transportation were dismissed. The Appellate Division modified the order regarding common-law and contractual indemnification and contribution, applying the antisubrogation rule to dismiss claims only to the extent of payments made by Admiral Insurance Co. It also reversed the order precluding Yonkers' counsel from participating in the trial, citing an error of law.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentThird-Party ActionCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationContributionAntisubrogation RuleAdditional InsuredCounsel PreclusionWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04185
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2016

Mecca Contracting, Inc. v. Scottsdale Insurance

Mecca Contracting, Inc., a general contractor, sought a declaratory judgment against Scottsdale Insurance Company after Scottsdale disclaimed coverage for an underlying personal injury action. Mecca, designated as an additional insured under a policy issued by Scottsdale to subcontractor Salcora Construction Corp., sought defense and indemnity, arguing the Scottsdale policy was primary. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Mecca, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division, Second Department. The Appellate Division found Mecca was entitled to the declaration that Scottsdale was obligated to defend and indemnify it, and that the Scottsdale policy was primary, based on the contract between Mecca and Salcora and the 'Blanket Additional Insured Endorsement.' The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Kings County, for the entry of a formal judgment.

Insurance CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentAdditional Insured EndorsementPrimary CoverageGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor AgreementConstruction LawIndemnityDefense ObligationBreach of Contract
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Hospital Medical Center v. Microtech Contracting Corp.

This case addresses whether an employer's protection from third-party claims under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 is lost when its injured employees are undocumented aliens. Plaintiff New York Hospital Medical Center sued defendant Microtech Contracting for common-law and contractual contribution and indemnification, following a judgment paid to Microtech's injured undocumented employees, Luis and Gerardo Lema. The hospital argued that Microtech's alleged violation of the Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA) in hiring the Lemas should preclude it from invoking Section 11's shield. Both the Supreme Court and Appellate Division dismissed the hospital's claims, affirming that employee immigration status does not negate an employer's statutory rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the illegality of the employment contract under IRCA does not override the employer's protections under Workers' Compensation Law § 11, particularly as the hospital did not pursue conflict preemption on appeal.

Workers' Compensation Law § 11Immigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Undocumented AliensThird-Party ClaimsContribution and IndemnificationGrave InjuryPreemptionLabor LawEmployer LiabilityEmployee Rights
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,200 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