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

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finnan v. LF Rothschild & Co., Inc.

This case involves a class action complaint filed by former employees of L.F. Rothschild & Co. Incorporated, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) for failure to provide 60-days notice prior to mass terminations in March 1989. Defendant Rothschild moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the WARN Act did not apply to actions prior to 60 days post-effective date, and to strike punitive damages. The court denied Rothschild's motion to dismiss, ruling that WARN Act liability attached to closings/layoffs occurring after the February 4, 1989 effective date, even if notice would have been required earlier. However, the court granted the motion to strike punitive damages, finding the WARN Act's specified remedies to be exclusive. Finally, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, deeming the requirements of F.R.Civ.P. Rule 23 to be met.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingNotice RequirementPunitive DamagesClass ActionStatutory InterpretationExclusive RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23Employment Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casey v. D'Elia

The petitioner sought medical assistance for her hospitalized husband, but her application was denied by the Nassau County Department of Social Services due to perceived excess resources and improper calculation of expenses. The petitioner was also not informed of her right to a fair hearing. The State Commissioner of Social Services affirmed the denial and ruled that the initial denial was beyond review due to a missed 60-day request window. The court found that the local agency erred in calculating the petitioner's expenses and in failing to consider unpaid medical bills. Furthermore, the court determined that the 60-day limitation period should be tolled because the petitioner was never properly notified of it. Consequently, the court annulled the State Commissioner's determination and remitted the matter to the local agency to re-evaluate the petitioner's eligibility for medical assistance.

Medical AssistanceSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78Eligibility for BenefitsResource CalculationFair Hearing NoticeTolling of LimitationsAdministrative ReviewRemittal for ReconsiderationHospitalization Costs
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 1974

Russell v. Dumpson

Petitioner (Mrs. Russell) initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge a May 9, 1974 decision by the New York State Department of Social Services, which affirmed the denial of retroactive public assistance by the New York City Department of Social Services. The petitioner and her husband had taken two children, Harry and Kennedy Drayton, into their home based on assurances from a social services employee that assistance would be provided. Despite filing an application and making numerous inquiries, assistance for the period the children resided with them was denied, and only later partially granted for one child. The respondents denied retroactive assistance, citing regulations that assistance meets current needs and the petitioner's alleged failure to request a fair hearing within 60 days. The court found errors of law in the respondents' decision, ruling that the Department could not penalize the petitioners for its own inaction and that the 60-day period did not commence without written notification. Consequently, the court annulled the decision and directed respondents to issue a retroactive grant of assistance to the petitioner.

Public AssistanceRetroactive GrantArticle 78 ProceedingSocial Services LawFair HearingAdministrative ReviewDue ProcessAgency InactionChildren's WelfareState Regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bressler

Carbon Investment Partners LLC and Carbon Master Fund LP moved to extend deadlines to object to debtor Lee Alexander Bressler's discharge under sections 523(c) and 727 of the Bankruptcy Code. Carbon argued that the 60-day deadline should run from the date the creditors' meeting actually took place, not the first scheduled date, and claimed an oral agreement with Bressler's counsel for an extension. The court, citing unambiguous language in Bankruptcy Rules 4004 and 4007 and their 1999 amendments, ruled that the deadline is calculated from the *first date set* for the 341 Meeting, making Carbon's motion untimely. The court also rejected Carbon's equitable arguments, emphasizing that only the court can grant extensions and reliance on an unapproved oral agreement was unreasonable. While acknowledging Bressler's alleged misconduct, the court found the circumstances not 'extraordinary' enough for equitable tolling. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing for potential future objections under Bankruptcy Rule 4004(b)(2) if new facts emerge.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Discharge ObjectionsBankruptcy RulesDeadline ExtensionEquitable TollingEquitable EstoppelCreditors' MeetingUntimely MotionFraudulent Conduct
References
30
Case No. 12-01051
Regular Panel Decision

Schuman v. Connaught Group, Ltd. (In re Connaught Group, Ltd.)

Plaintiff Martina Schuman, on behalf of herself and approximately 100 former employees, filed an adversary proceeding seeking class certification for claims under the Federal and New York State WARN Acts against The Connaught Group Creditors’ Liquidating Trust. The claims alleged that employees were terminated without the legally required 60 days' notice on or about January 30, 2012, following the debtor The Connaught Group, Ltd.'s bankruptcy filing. The Trust opposed, arguing inadequate representation due to differing priorities for pre-petition versus post-petition claims and that a class action was inferior to the bankruptcy claims process. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the Southern District of New York, found that the plaintiff met the criteria for numerosity, commonality, and typicality under Rule 23(a). It ruled that no conflict of interest existed between pre-petition and post-petition claimants as the confirmed bankruptcy plan provided equal treatment for both administrative and priority claims, and the class action was deemed superior given the early filing and the purpose of Rule 23 to avoid multiple individual claims. The motion for class certification was therefore granted.

Class ActionWARN ActBankruptcy LawCreditorsMass LayoffEmployee RightsClass CertificationStatute of LimitationsBar DateAdversary Proceeding
References
26
Case No. ADJ3682964 (ANA 0393581) ADJ2308886 (ANA 0399397)
Regular
Dec 12, 2008

KARLA ORNELAZ vs. ALBERTSON'S INC., Permissibly Selfinsured, Administered by SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the employer's offer of modified work was timely. The Board ruled that the 60-day period to offer work under Labor Code § 4658(d) begins when the employer is served with notice of the employee's permanent and stationary status. Furthermore, the Board held that the five-day mailing extension under Code of Civil Procedure § 1013 applies to this notice, thus entitling the employer to a 15% decrease in permanent disability indemnity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardAlbertson's Inc.Specialty Risk ServicesInc.Karla OrnelazLabor Code §4658(d)(2)Labor Code §4658(d)(3)(A)permanent and stationarymodified workalternative work
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 8,290 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