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

Jones v. 414 Equities LLC

A demolition worker, Jones, fell 10-12 feet when a permanent floor collapsed during renovation. He sued the owner, 414 Equities LLC, and general contractor, Artimus Construction, Inc., under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) and common-law negligence. Plaintiff moved for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability, arguing an elevation-related risk and lack of safety devices, and the floor's decay. The Supreme Court denied this motion, ruling that a permanent floor collapse only posed an elevation-related risk if foreseeable, and plaintiff's evidence was insufficient. The Supreme Court also denied plaintiff's motion for a default judgment against the general contractor and granted the contractor's cross-motion for leave to serve a late answer. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, concluding that foreseeability is required for Labor Law § 240(1) liability in permanent floor collapse cases, and finding the general contractor's brief delay in answering excusable.

Demolition workLabor Law § 240(1)Elevation-related riskPermanent floor collapseSummary judgmentForeseeabilityAppellate reviewWorker safetyConstruction site accidentGeneral contractor liability
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2000

Cruceta v. Funnel Equities, Inc.

Juanita Cruceta, an employee of Waldbaum, Inc., was injured after tripping at work and subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim. Along with her husband, Qulvio Cruceta, she initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Funnel Equities, Inc., the building owner and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Waldbaum. Funnel moved for summary judgment, asserting the workers' compensation exclusivity provision under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6), arguing it was an 'alter ego' of Waldbaum. The Supreme Court denied Funnel's motion. The appellate court affirmed this decision, citing unresolved factual issues regarding Funnel's 'alter ego' status with Waldbaum and its parent company, A&P, and whether Funnel possessed exclusive knowledge of these pertinent facts.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAlter Ego DoctrineCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityFactual IssuesAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityBuilding Owner
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palacino v. Equity Management Group

In this case, Emanuel Palacino, a porter for Equity Management Group, was injured in an elevator accident. Equity Management Group moved to amend its answer to assert the affirmative defense of the Workers' Compensation Law, arguing Palacino was a special employee, and sought summary judgment. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied Equity's motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting Equity leave to amend its answer. However, the court found triable issues of fact concerning Palacino's special employee status and Equity's indemnification claim against Century Elevator Maintenance Corp., precluding summary judgment on those issues.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation DefenseSpecial Employee StatusLeave to Amend AnswerSummary Judgment MotionIndemnification ClaimTriable Issues of FactAppellate ReviewElevator AccidentEmployer Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reeves v. Continental Equities Corp. of America

Alfred P. Reeves sued Continental Equities Corporation of America and Continental Corporation alleging wrongful discharge under federal securities laws and implied contract, severance benefits under New York law and ERISA, and unreimbursed business expenses. After initial federal claims were dismissed and some remanded by the Second Circuit, Reeves filed an Amended Complaint, adding defamation and demands for a jury trial and punitive damages. Continental moved to dismiss certain state law claims and strike the jury demand and punitive damages requests. The court dismissed the federal securities law claim (again) and the defamation claim for lack of specificity and potential untimeliness. It allowed the ERISA severance benefits claim and the remaining state law claims (wrongful discharge, unreimbursed business expenses) to proceed under pendent jurisdiction. The jury trial demand for ERISA benefits was allowed to stand for further discovery, and punitive damages for ERISA were deferred, but punitive damages for the breach of contract claim were stricken under New York law.

wrongful dischargeERISAseverance benefitsimplied contractdefamationpunitive damagesjury trialfederal securities lawspendent jurisdictionsummary judgment
References
27
Case No. 2014 NYSlipOp 06570 [121 AD3d 661]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 2014

Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC v. Al-An Elevator Maintenance Corp.

This case involves a dispute between Renaissance Equity Holdings, LLC (plaintiff) and Al-An Elevator Maintenance Corporation (defendant) concerning a 10-year elevator maintenance contract. The defendant ceased services, alleging unsafe premises. The plaintiff subsequently sued for breach of contract and fraud. The Supreme Court partially dismissed the plaintiff's claims, specifically regarding consequential damages for breach of contract and the entire fraud cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the breach of contract claim was adequately pleaded, the limitation on liability for consequential damages was enforceable, and the fraud claim was properly dismissed as it was not collateral to the contract.

Breach of ContractFraudElevator Maintenance AgreementConsequential DamagesMotion to DismissCPLR 3211Condition PrecedentLimitation on LiabilityAppellate Review
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re AMR Corp.

This case addresses two motions filed by the Movants (comprising various unions and financial institutions) against the Debtors (reorganized debtors of AMR Corp.) seeking to enforce specific terms of the Fourth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan. The core dispute revolves around whether the Movants are entitled to 'true-up payments' in the form of additional stock shares beyond what they already received. The Movants argued that their initial stock distributions were reduced by taxes from the Disputed Claims Reserve, resulting in fewer shares than those received by claimants whose claims were allowed on the Effective Date. They contend the Plan is share-based, aiming for equal share distribution per $1,000 of allowed claims. Conversely, the Debtors argued the Plan is value-based, asserting that the Movants had already received full value due to stock appreciation and that excess funds should benefit junior equity holders. The Court ultimately sided with the Movants, interpreting the Plan as share-based and concluding that the true-up provision in Section 7.4(b) aims to equalize the number of shares received, consistent with bankruptcy principles of equal treatment for claims within the same class. The Debtors' value-based interpretation and 'deemed tax' argument were rejected.

BankruptcyChapter 11 PlanTrue-Up PaymentsStock DistributionsDisputed ClaimsTaxationContract InterpretationEqual Treatment PrincipleAbsolute Priority RuleClaimant Recovery
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 1994

City of New York v. 1820-1838 Amsterdam Equities, Inc. (In re 1820-1838 Amsterdam Equities, Inc.)

The City of New York, a creditor-appellant, sought leave to appeal an interlocutory order from the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Bankruptcy Court had denied the City's motion to dismiss the Chapter 11 petition of 1820-1838 Amsterdam Equities, a debtor in default on over $400,000 in city taxes. District Judge Sweet, presiding over the motion for leave to appeal, found that the City failed to meet the standards for interlocutory appeals under 28 U.S.C. § 1292(b). The court determined there was no controlling question of law with a substantial ground for difference of opinion, and an immediate appeal would not materially advance the litigation. Consequently, the motion for leave to appeal was denied, upholding the Bankruptcy Court's fact-specific decision.

BankruptcyInterlocutory AppealMotion to DismissChapter 11CreditorDebtorReal Estate TaxesMortgageJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Sweet

A claimant, formerly a sewage treatment worker for a municipality, left his job and moved to Hawaii after receiving a conditional job offer at a tropical fish farm and his girlfriend's relocation there. Upon arrival, he discovered the position was no longer available. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, determining he had voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that the claimant failed to verify the job offer before moving and had primarily relocated for personal reasons without definite employment.

Unemployment benefitsVoluntary quitGood cause for leavingJob availabilityRelocation for personal reasonsDisqualification for benefitsAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceMunicipality employmentHawaii job offer
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marchese v. Secretary of Health and Human Services

Plaintiff, who received disability payments erroneously from October 1977 to April 1985, appealed the denial of a waiver for the recovery of a $15,301.60 overpayment. The Secretary found the plaintiff without fault in causing the overpayment but denied the waiver, stating recovery would not be against equity and good conscience or defeat the purposes of Title II of the Social Security Act. The court, while acknowledging a broader interpretation of "against equity and good conscience," found the Secretary's decision supported by evidence regarding the plaintiff's reliance on his attorney. However, the court deemed the Secretary's assessment of whether recovery would not defeat the Act's purposes inadequate, particularly concerning the plaintiff's $10,000 savings in relation to his monthly expenses which already exceeded his income. The case is remanded for a more thorough examination of the plaintiff's financial situation.

Disability BenefitsOverpaymentWaiver of RecoverySocial Security ActEquity and Good ConscienceFinancial HardshipRemandAdministrative LawAttorney MalpracticeBurden of Proof
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,313 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