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
Oct 19, 1994

Comer v. Titan Tool, Inc.

Plaintiffs Delores Comer and Patricia Edelson, as personal representatives of Michael Comer's estate, brought a diversity action for wrongful death against Titan Tool, Inc., the manufacturer of a paint sprayer Michael Comer was using when he died. Titan Tool, Inc. then filed a third-party complaint seeking contribution from Rock & Waterscape Systems, Inc. (R&W), Comer's employer. R&W moved for summary judgment, arguing that under Florida workers’ compensation law, a death benefit payment to Delores Comer barred further liability. The court, applying New York's choice of law rules and interest analysis, found no basis for applying Florida law as R&W is a California domiciliary. The court denied R&W's motion for summary judgment, stating that triable issues remained regarding the choice of law question between New York and California, as Florida law could not control the case.

wrongful deathsummary judgmentchoice of lawdiversity jurisdictionworkers' compensationdomicileloss allocationtort lawemployer liabilityproduct liability
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy v. Consolidated Machine Tool Corp.

Plaintiff's testator sustained fatal injuries during his employment by USM Corporation when struck by a ram of a mill he was repairing. The mill's parts were designed and manufactured by Consolidated Machine Tool Corp., Farrel-Birmingham Co., Inc., and Parrel Corporation, all of which were succeeded by USM, a subsidiary of Emhart Corporation. Plaintiff alleged negligent and defective design, construction, and maintenance, asserting strict liability and negligence for wrongful death, pain and suffering, and loss of services. Special Term dismissed the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, citing that liability for predecessor corporations' actions was assumed by USM, the employer, thus barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The court declined to adopt a dual capacity rule, stating that any such change should originate from the Court of Appeals.

Wrongful DeathStrict LiabilityNegligenceWorkers' Compensation BarCorporate Successor LiabilityDual Capacity RuleProduct LiabilityEmployment InjuryIndustrial AccidentAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martegani v. Cirrus Design Corp.

Micaela Martegani, individually and as natural guardian of her minor child, commenced a wrongful death action against Cirrus Design Corporation and East End Aviation following her husband's death in a 2006 plane crash. The parties reached a settlement, and Martegani sought court approval, including attorney's fees and the establishment of a trust for the minor child's share. The court approved the settlement in principle, but significantly reduced the requested attorney's fees by 30% due to the absence of contemporaneous time records. Additionally, the court denied the recovery of "case expenses" and a $5,000 reserve due to insufficient documentation. The final order authorized Martegani to settle the claims, with specific allocations for attorney's fees, the minor child's trust, and Martegani's personal compensation.

Infant SettlementWrongful DeathPlane CrashAttorney FeesContingency FeeCourt ApprovalMinor Child TrustSettlement AllocationCase ExpensesDocumentation Requirements
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 15, 2012

Rozenfeld v. Department of Design & Construction

Plaintiff Paul Rozenfeld sued his former employer, the New York City Department of Design and Construction (DDC), and several DDC employees, alleging discrimination and retaliation based on race, color, and age under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, § 1983, SHRL, and CHRL. Defendants moved for summary judgment, and Plaintiff cross-moved. The court found that Plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily waived most of his claims through a settlement agreement. Even if the waiver were invalid, Plaintiff failed to demonstrate adverse employment action or circumstances inferring discrimination. The court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' motion, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentWaiver AgreementADEATitle VIISection 1983
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joyner v. Event Design Associates, Inc.

Claimant was retained by Event Design Associates, Inc. (EDA) to transport furniture and event props for a party. While en route to a hotel during this assignment, claimant was involved in an automobile accident and sustained serious injuries. Subsequently, claimant applied for workers' compensation benefits, asserting an employer-employee relationship with EDA. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding that an employment relationship existed. EDA appealed this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's ruling, concluding there was substantial evidence to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship, based on factors such as EDA's control over the work, method of payment, and right to terminate.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorSubstantial EvidenceControl TestAppellate ReviewAutomobile AccidentNew YorkWorkers' Compensation BoardTemporary Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nichols v. BDS Landscape Design

Deborah Nichols, injured in a slip and fall in 2005, sought to enforce an oral settlement for a negligence claim against BDS Landscape Design, William Dobson, III, and National Grange Mutual Insurance. Despite reaching an agreement contingent on a workers' compensation lien waiver, National Grange later disputed the settlement and claimed the action was time-barred after Nichols received the necessary consent. Nichols initiated a special proceeding to compel payment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the higher court reversed the lower court's order, converting the special proceeding into an action, and held that Nichols failed to establish the existence and terms of the settlement agreement as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallNegligenceSettlement AgreementBreach of ContractStatute of LimitationsSpecial ProceedingConversion of ActionWorkers' Compensation LienInsurance Dispute
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. General Design and Development, Inc.

Jerry Johnson was severely injured in November 1991 when a drill bound, causing him to fall from a stepladder at a construction site. He and his spouse sued the general contractor, General Design and Development, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), among other claims. General subsequently initiated a third-party action against subcontractors Omni Plumbing Company and Thomas P. Pleat Construction, Inc., seeking contribution and indemnification. Plaintiffs were granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) by the Supreme Court. The defendants appealed, contending the injuries were not elevation-related. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the stepladder was inadequate and the accident constituted an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), thus establishing a prima facie violation.

Construction AccidentLabor LawFall from HeightScaffolding LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryContractor LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityIndemnification
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Khan v. Douglas MacHine & Tool Co., Inc.

Subhan Khan sued Douglas Machine & Tool Company, Inc. and TurboCombustor Technology, Inc. for failure to pay sums due under a debenture. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Khan violated a Subordination Agreement by attempting to collect on a junior debt without the senior creditor's consent. Khan cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting the Subordination Agreement was invalidly assigned or that the senior debt had been paid. The court found the Subordination Agreement validly assigned and in force, and that Khan failed to provide sufficient admissible evidence that the senior debt was extinguished. Consequently, the court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Khan's action, while denying Khan's cross-motion.

Summary JudgmentDebentureSubordination AgreementContract LawAssignment of ContractCorporate Veil PiercingOhio LawNew York LawDiversity JurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Basketball Ass'n v. Design Management Consultants, Inc.

The National Basketball Association (NBA) and NBA Properties, Inc. (plaintiffs) initiated a civil contempt motion against Designer Management Consultants, Inc. (DMC) and Delroy Allen (defendants). Plaintiffs alleged that defendants violated a Preliminary Injunction on Consent, issued on August 11, 2003, by continuing to sell 'Disputed Merchandise' bearing NBA trademarks and failing to provide a complete accounting of these sales. The court found clear and convincing evidence of non-compliance regarding merchandise sales and accounting documentation. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for civil contempt was granted, with sanctions including a $2,500 daily fine for continued non-compliance after October 15, 2003, and an entitlement to net profits from the unlawful sales, to be determined later.

Trademark InfringementCivil ContemptPreliminary InjunctionTrademark DilutionUnfair CompetitionDeceptive ActsBrand ProtectionIntellectual PropertySanctionsCompliance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 1998

Nos v. Greenpoint Manufacturing & Design Center Local Development Corp.

Greenpoint Manufacturing and Design Center Local Development Corporation, the owner and lessor of a property, appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment on common-law indemnification against S & G Woodworking, Inc. A worker employed by S & G was allegedly injured after falling from a ladder on Greenpoint's premises. The appellate court found no evidence that Greenpoint supervised or controlled the plaintiff's work, thus establishing its right to indemnification from S & G. The order was reversed, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and Greenpoint was deemed entitled to recover legal expenses incurred in defending the plaintiff's claims.

Personal InjuryCommon-law indemnificationSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorker InjuryPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityLessor LiabilityThird-party actionLegal Expenses
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 608 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