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

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07699 [176 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2019

Rivera v. 11 W. 42 Realty Invs., L.L.C.

Plaintiff Humberto Rivera was injured while riding in an elevator filled with unsecured construction materials. Defendants 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C. and Tishman Speyer Properties, L.P. successfully appealed the denial of their motion for summary judgment, with the Appellate Division finding they established prima facie that they did not cause or have notice of the unsafe condition and only exercised general supervisory control. Conversely, defendants NTT Services, LLC and Pritchard Industries, Inc.'s motion for summary judgment was denied and affirmed on appeal. They failed to demonstrate they did not create a hazard or fully displace the duty to maintain safe premises, given that their employee permitted plaintiff to enter the elevator despite company rules against it. The court also noted unresolved issues regarding contractual indemnification for 11 West 42 Realty Investors, L.L.C.

Elevator AccidentPremises LiabilitySummary Judgment MotionNegligenceContractual IndemnificationGeneral Supervisory ControlUnsecured MaterialsWorker SafetyAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. Claim 230
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

This case involves an appeal by Tribune New York Holdings, Inc. (NY Holdings) of an Administrator's denial of its motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in "Claim 230." Claim 230 originated from EEOC discrimination charges filed by employees of the New York Daily News, alleging ongoing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stemming from a larger class action suit against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and various publishers. NY Holdings argued that the claimants failed to prosecute diligently under Rule 41(b) and could not substantiate their discrimination claims for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The District Court, granting deference to the Administrator's findings akin to an arbitrator's decision, affirmed the Administrator's denial of both motions. The court concluded that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion regarding diligent prosecution and that genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination persisted, thereby precluding summary judgment, while cautioning against further delays.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Affirmative ActionConsent DecreeSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionRule 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 56(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOC
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Jamesway Corp.

This case addresses whether claims arising from a debtor's rejection of non-residential real property leases, which were assumed in a prior Chapter 11 case (Jamesway I), are entitled to administrative priority in a subsequent Chapter 11 case (Jamesway II). Landlords sought administrative expense status for these claims, while Jamesway and the Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors argued they were general unsecured claims subject to statutory limitations. The court denied the Landlords' motion, holding that the claims do not qualify for administrative priority in Jamesway II because the leases were not assumed in this distinct second proceeding and did not provide an actual benefit to the Jamesway II estate. Consequently, the court granted Jamesway's cross-motion, classifying the Landlords' claims as general unsecured pre-petition claims, subject to the caps outlined in § 502(b)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code.

BankruptcyChapter 11Lease RejectionAdministrative ClaimUnsecured ClaimSummary JudgmentSuccessive Bankruptcy FilingsCreditor PriorityDebtor-in-PossessionEstate Preservation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Case No. 05-01158
Regular Panel Decision

In Re ACE Elevator Co., Inc.

The Trustees of the National Elevator Industry Benefit Plans sought administrative priority for delinquent contributions from A.C.E. Elevator Co., Inc. (ACE), based on various sections of the Bankruptcy Code. The court denied administrative priority for most claims, including those under 11 U.S.C. §§ 503(b)(1)(A), 507(a)(1), and 1113(f), reasoning that the contributions were for prepetition work and that section 1113(f) does not create super-priority. However, the motion was partially granted under 11 U.S.C. § 1114(e) for Welfare Plan contributions, recognizing them as retiree benefits despite their prepetition nature, but requiring further information on the exact allocation to retirees. Claims for interest, liquidated damages, and attorney's fees were denied priority, as was ACE's request for costs. This decision underscores the careful interpretation of priority schemes within bankruptcy law.

Bankruptcy LawAdministrative PriorityEmployee BenefitsPension PlansWelfare PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsDebtor-in-PossessionRetiree Benefits Bankruptcy Protection ActPrepetition ClaimsPostpetition Claims
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedro v. Village of Endicott

Claimant, a firefighter, sustained injuries while repairing his personal vehicle during "unstructured time" at the fire station. The self-insured employer and its plan administrator disputed the claim, arguing the activity was purely personal and not work-related. However, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge and the Workers’ Compensation Board determined the injury was compensable, citing a departmental tolerance for such repairs during on-duty hours. The appellate court affirmed these decisions, holding that during periods of enforced waiting, reasonable activities are permissible, and the Board's finding of work-relatedness was supported by evidence of departmental tolerance.

Firefighter injurypersonal vehicle repairon-duty incidentunstructured timetolerated activityscope of employmentWorkers' Compensation Board appealcompensable injuryemployer toleranceadministrative appeal
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 11,239 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