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. 2023 NY Slip Op 06179 [221 AD3d 1382]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2023

Pierce v. Archer Daniels Midland, Co.

Debra D. Pierce, as an individual and administrator of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a Supreme Court order that dismissed her claims against Archer Daniels Midland, Co. (ADM) and ADM Milling, Co. Her husband was fatally injured during employment, leading to claims including negligence and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court had granted dismissal based on Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity, as Pierce had received workers' compensation benefits naming ADM Milling as the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Pierce's direct claims against ADM Milling due to the finality of the Workers' Compensation Board decision. However, the Court reversed the dismissal of future cross-claims against ADM Milling, citing the grave injury exception allowing third-party actions. Additionally, the dismissal of the complaint and cross-claims against ADM was reversed as premature, given unresolved factual issues regarding corporate control.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityGrave Injury ExceptionParent Corporation LiabilityMotion to DismissCollateral AttackJudicial EstoppelThird-Party ActionIndemnification and ContributionEmployment LawWrongful Death
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Solomon v. R.E.K. Dress

Plaintiffs, trustees of employee benefit plans, sued R.E.K. Dress, Inc. and its sole shareholder, Richard Kirshy, seeking unpaid contributions to union benefit plans under ERISA. A default judgment was granted against R.E.K. The court then evaluated whether Kirshy could be held personally liable as an 'employer' under ERISA or by piercing the corporate veil. After analyzing ERISA's language, legislative history, and relevant case law, the court concluded that Kirshy was not an 'employer' as defined by the statute. Consequently, the complaint against Kirshy was dismissed without prejudice, allowing plaintiffs to file an amended complaint providing facts to justify piercing the corporate veil.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsEmployer ContributionsCollective Bargaining AgreementCorporate Veil PiercingShareholder LiabilityOfficer LiabilitySummary JudgmentMotion to DismissFederal Court
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2016

Leo v. Lomma

This case addresses consolidated wrongful death actions resulting from a catastrophic crane collapse in Manhattan in 2008, which led to the deaths of Donald Leo and Kurtaj. The plaintiffs successfully sued New York Crane & Equipment Corp., J.F. Lomma, Inc., and James F. Lomma, with the jury finding negligence and piercing the corporate veil to hold Lomma personally liable for prioritizing profit over safety in procuring a defective crane bearing. On appeal, the court affirmed the liability findings and the corporate veil piercing, while also upholding the preclusion of a defense expert's testimony. However, the appellate court deemed the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, pain and suffering, and punitive damages to be excessive. Consequently, it directed a new trial on these damages unless the plaintiffs agreed to stipulated reductions, otherwise affirming the judgments with modifications.

Wrongful DeathCrane CollapseCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExcessive DamagesExpert Witness PreclusionNegligenceReckless ConductConstruction AccidentPreimpact Terror
References
34
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

United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers v. Great American Industries, Inc.

This diversity action was brought by the United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum and Plastic Workers of America, representing members of its former Local 204, against Linear, Inc. and its related corporate entities (Great American Industries, Inc., Rubatex Corporation, and Rubatex Holding Corporation). The plaintiff alleged numerous violations of a Collective Bargaining Agreement after Linear, Inc. ceased manufacturing operations. The court found Linear, Inc. liable for various employee benefits, including unpaid vacation pay, supplemental unemployment benefits, hospitalization benefits, and pension contributions. Critically, the court determined that Linear, Inc. operated as a mere instrumentality of its parent and grandparent corporations. Consequently, the corporate veil was pierced, holding Great American Industries, Inc., Rubatex Corporation, and Rubatex Holding Corporation liable for Linear, Inc.'s labor obligations.

Labor RelationsCollective BargainingCorporate VeilParent Company LiabilitySubsidiary LiabilityEmployee BenefitsPension DisputeVacation Pay ClaimsSupplemental Unemployment BenefitsFraudulent Transfers
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Oltremare

This case involves the Textile Workers Pension Fund and other fiduciaries (the Funds) suing Helen and Vincent Oltramare (the Oltramares) under ERISA to satisfy a previous consent judgment against two corporations they controlled. The Funds alleged two theories for liability: first, that Mrs. Oltramare's land ownership constituted a 'trade or business' within a control group liable under 29 U.S.C. § 1301; and second, to pierce the corporate veil of the Oltramares' corporations due to alleged irregularities. The court granted the Oltramares' motion to dismiss the first claim, finding no sufficient connection between the property and the corporations to establish a 'trade or business.' However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the second claim, allowing for further discovery into allegations of missing corporate records and unreported cash sales, aligning with ERISA's broad remedial purpose. The case was subsequently referred to a Magistrate for limited discovery concerning the second cause of action.

ERISA LitigationCorporate Veil PiercingControl Group LiabilityPension Fund EnforcementDelinquent ContributionsWithdrawal LiabilityMotion to Dismiss GrantedMotion to Dismiss DeniedReal Estate as Trade or BusinessFiduciary Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Westminster Bank U.S.A. v. Cheng

National Westminster Bank USA (NatWest USA) initiated an action against Calvin W.S. Cheng and corporations under his control, seeking to recover approximately $1.9 million from prior default judgments against Soto Grande Shipping Corporation, S.A. and Y.C. Cheng, Calvin Cheng's father. NatWest USA had extended a loan to Y.C. Cheng and Soto Grande for a ship purchase, which subsequently went into default. The bank alleged a scheme involving Y.C. Cheng transferring profitable assets to Calvin Cheng's corporations to evade creditors, pursuing satisfaction of judgments through theories of fraudulent conveyance and piercing the corporate veil. However, the court found no subject matter jurisdiction, noting a lack of complete diversity among the parties as both petitioner and respondent corporations shared New York as their principal place of business. Furthermore, the court rejected ancillary jurisdiction, asserting that the claims were state law-based, involved non-diverse parties, and were too far removed from the original breach of contract action. Consequently, the respondents' motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAncillary JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureFraudulent ConveyancePiercing the Corporate VeilJudgment EnforcementSubject Matter JurisdictionCorporate LawLoan Default
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp. v. Diamond

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp., a low bidder for two city roofing contracts, had its bids rejected by municipal respondents for failing to meet experience requirements. The IAS Court initially sided with Giampilis, deeming the rejection arbitrary by stating the experience of the Giampilis brothers in a companion corporation should be considered. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming that the municipal respondents had a rational basis for rejecting the bids. The court highlighted that judicial review of administrative determinations is limited to assessing if there was a rational basis for the decision. It concluded that the bids were non-responsive as the corporate petitioner itself did not meet the specific experience criteria outlined in the bid documents, and there was no legal obligation to 'pierce the corporate veil' to consider the experience of a companion corporation.

Bid RejectionPublic ContractsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCorporate VeilContract BiddingExperience RequirementsGovernment ProcurementNew York LawAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1985

Colby v. St. Paul Fire & Marine Insurance

The plaintiff, a truck driver employed by American Forest Products Corporation (American), sustained injuries in a motor vehicle accident on December 21, 1982, while operating a tractor trailer owned by T. J. Vesce, Inc. (Vesce) and leased by American. The plaintiff subsequently secured a default judgment of $365,000 against Vesce. In a declaratory judgment action, the plaintiff sought to hold St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Company (St. Paul), American's insurer, liable for the judgment, arguing that Vesce remained the true insured due to an intertwined corporate history and name changes between American and Vesce. The court rejected this theory, finding no basis to pierce the corporate veil or disregard the corporate names, and affirmed that the insurance contract covered American. Additionally, the court noted that the policy explicitly excluded coverage for bodily injury to an insured's employee, which the plaintiff, as an employee of American, was subject to, thus directing recourse under the Workers' Compensation Law. The order denying the plaintiff's cross motion for summary judgment and declaring St. Paul not liable to the plaintiff was affirmed.

declaratory judgmentcorporate veilinsurance policy constructionemployee exclusionmotor vehicle accidentcorporate name changesummary judgmentemployer liabilityinsurance coverageappellate review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Clumber Transportation Corp.

Clumber Transportation Corporation and Poppy Cab Corporation appealed decisions from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The Board found both corporations to be employers, subject to workers’ compensation insurance requirements, because they leased taxicab medallions and, in Clumber's case, had more than one corporate officer prior to January 1, 1987. The corporations challenged the statutory employment relationship and the Board Chairman's authority to delegate penalty imposition. The court affirmed the Board’s interpretation of Workers’ Compensation Law § 2, finding that medallion leases created a statutory employment relationship. It also upheld the Board's finding regarding Clumber's multiple officers and the Chairman's delegation authority. However, the court modified the penalty against Poppy Cab Corporation, reducing it from $7,200 to $6,000, while affirming the decision against Clumber.

Workers Compensation LawTaxicab MedallionEmployer-Employee RelationshipStatutory EmploymentCorporate OfficersInsurance RequirementDelegation of AuthorityAdministrative PenaltiesAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,581 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