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. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
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

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Local No. 5 v. Hudson Valley District Council Bricklayers & Allied Craftsmen Joint Benefit Funds

This case concerns the authority of the International Union of Bricklayers and Allied Craftsmen to appoint trustees to employee benefit (ERISA) funds, displacing previously appointed trustees from superseded local union entities. The International Union merged local entities into a new Local 5 and appointed Emil Parietti, Jr. as its President, granting him authority to appoint trustees. A previously appointed trustee declined to be replaced, causing a dispute where the new Local 5 has fewer than its authorized number of trustees on the ERISA funds. The court found that the International Union has the ultimate authority in such matters and that the continued service of trustees against the appointing authority's wishes causes irreparable injury. While the plaintiffs' specific request for an injunction was deemed too broad, the court determined that the requirements for a preliminary injunction placing Mr. Parietti's designee were met. The court directed the parties to seek settlement and ordered the defendants to show cause why such a preliminary injunction should not be entered.

International Trade UnionsLabor Management Relations ActERISAEmployee Benefit FundsTrustee AppointmentUnion Internal StructureLocal Union MergerPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05741
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Petesic v. Fox 5 N.Y.

Claimant Julie Petesic, a makeup artist, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits related to contracting Bartonella bacteria at work. She alleged exposure to dead rodents and their droppings, but the Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially denied the claim, which the Board upheld, finding no causal link between employment and the disease. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant failed to fully disclose her travel history to Croatia, which impacted the reliability of the physician's causation opinion. Consequently, the Board's determination, supported by substantial evidence, that the claimant failed to establish her Bartonella claim was upheld.

Workers' CompensationBartonellaCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceTravel HistoryCredibilityAppellate ReviewOccupational DiseaseToxicologyExposure
References
11
Case No. 5
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. WOR RADIO

The case concerns Edward Walsh's breach of contract claim against WOR Radio a/k/a Buckley Broadcasting Company (BBC) for wrongful termination of employment in violation of an oral contract. BBC moved to dismiss the action or stay proceedings pending arbitration, citing the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). The court determined that if an oral contract existed, it likely incorporated an arbitration clause from a prior written agreement. Furthermore, the court found that the Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) applied to Walsh as a program host and mandated arbitration. Emphasizing federal policy favoring arbitration, the court granted BBC's motion to dismiss.

ArbitrationEmployment ContractWrongful TerminationBreach of ContractFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementOral ContractRadio Program HostMotion to Dismiss
References
16
Case No. ADJ10203862
Regular
Dec 08, 2016

EARNEST YBARRA vs. BIG 5 CORPORATION, CORVEL CORPORATION

Defendant Big 5 Corporation sought removal from a WCJ's order continuing trial to allow the applicant to supplement the medical record. The defendant argued this continuance was due to applicant's counsel's lack of diligence and violated their due process rights. The Appeals Board denied the petition, finding that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy and that the issue of attorney diligence could be addressed during attorney fee determination. Removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring a showing of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPetition for RemovalMinute Orderpanel qualified medical examinerPQMEmedical recordsLabor Code section 5502due processReport and Recommendationcontinued trial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bio-Technology General Corp. v. Genentech, Inc.

The plaintiff, BTG, initiated a declaratory judgment action against Genentech, Rogers & Wells, and John Kidd, seeking a declaration of patent invalidity and non-infringement, coupled with claims of unfair competition, malicious prosecution, abuse of process, antitrust violations, and prima facie tort under New York law. The defendants moved to dismiss claims 2 and 5-12 of the complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing all aforementioned claims. The ruling found that Genentech's prior ITC action was not objectively baseless and thus protected by Noerr-Pennington immunity, preventing BTG's antitrust and related state common law claims. Additionally, the court affirmed that ITC determinations, while having preclusive effect on certain issues, do not preempt federal district courts' exclusive jurisdiction over patent validity.

Antitrust LawPatent LawDeclaratory JudgmentsMotion to DismissSham LitigationNoerr-Pennington DoctrineMalicious ProsecutionAbuse of ProcessPrima Facie TortUnfair Competition
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bricklayers & Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund v. Transocean Ltd.

This case involves a putative class action brought by pension funds, Bricklayers and Masons Local Union No. 5 Ohio Pension Fund and DeKalb County Pension Fund, against Transocean Ltd. and its CEOs, Robert Long and Jon A. Marshall. The plaintiffs allege violations of Sections 14(a) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act, claiming that a 2007 merger proxy statement contained false and misleading information about Transocean's environmental compliance, safety protocols, and training programs. The subsequent Deepwater Horizon explosion in 2010 allegedly revealed these deficiencies, causing a significant drop in Transocean's stock price and shareholder losses. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted dismissal without prejudice for Bricklayers' claims and against Transocean Ltd., but denied the motion in all other respects, allowing DeKalb's claims and those against individual defendants to proceed, while granting leave for plaintiffs to amend their complaint.

Securities FraudProxy StatementMergerDeepwater HorizonOil SpillEnvironmental Law ComplianceCorporate GovernanceShareholder RightsMotion to DismissLoss Causation
References
41
Showing 1-10 of 1,385 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