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 20, 2006

Laura I.M. v. Hillside Children's Center

The case concerns infant plaintiffs who were sexually abused by Sergey Reznikov, a patient at Hillside Children’s Center, during unaccompanied weekend home visits. Reznikov had a documented history of pedophilia, for which he was admitted to Hillside. Plaintiffs sued Hillside, asserting liability for negligent failure to exercise professional judgment in allowing these home visits without properly assessing supervision capabilities. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment on liability for the plaintiffs, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The affirmation was based on Hillside's failure to discuss supervision with Reznikov's mother and a social worker's omission to inform a psychiatrist of critical information regarding Reznikov's contact with the victims.

negligenceprofessional judgmentchild sexual abusetreatment facility liabilitypedophiliasupervision failurehome visit policysummary judgmentappellate affirmancephysician-patient privilege
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Bankers Ass'n of New York State Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.

This case involves an action brought by the Independent Bankers Association of New York State, Inc. and The Canadaigua National Bank and Trust Company against Marine Midland Bank, N.A. and Wegman’s Food Markets, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Marine Midland violated Section 36 of the National Banking Act by operating an automated teller machine (ATM) at a Wegman's supermarket, constituting unauthorized branch banking. Concurrently, a state law claim was brought against Wegman's for violating Section 131 of the New York Banking Law, which prohibits unauthorized banking activities. Wegman's filed a motion to dismiss, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claim, specifically concerning the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over a party not otherwise subject to federal jurisdiction. The court determined that it possessed both the constitutional power under Article III and the statutory power under 12 U.S.C. Section 36 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 to exercise pendent party jurisdiction. Finding that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants would be served by hearing the claims together, the court exercised its discretion and denied Wegman’s motion to dismiss.

Pendant JurisdictionNational Banking ActNew York Banking LawATMBranch BankingSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial PowerFederal Question JurisdictionArticle IIIStatutory Construction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2002

Claim of Adames v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.

The claimant, an exercise rider, injured his ankle after his license expired but before he could renew it due to a system delay. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found him to be a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc., a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. The fund and its carrier appealed, arguing that an expired license should preclude coverage. The court affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting relevant statutes to ensure blanket coverage for jockeys and exercise persons, noting that denying coverage in such circumstances would defeat the legislative intent of timely compensation for injured workers.

Exercise RiderExpired LicenseStatutory InterpretationEmployee StatusJockey Injury Compensation FundRacing LawLegislative IntentTimely CompensationBlanket CoverageAdministrative Deference
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J.A.J. Liquor Store, Inc. v. New York State Liquor Authority

This case consolidates appeals challenging penalties imposed by the State Liquor Authority for selling liquor below cost, in violation of Alcoholic Beverage Control Law § 101-bb. Petitioners argued that the law violated the Sherman Antitrust Act. The court held that § 101-bb is a proper exercise of the State's power under the 21st Amendment and does not conflict with the Sherman Act, thus reinstating the violations. Additionally, the court affirmed that J.A.J. Liquor Store did not unlawfully engage in another business, and reversed the Appellate Division's invalidation of Bulletin 471, confirming it as a proper exercise of the Liquor Authority's rule-making power.

Alcoholic Beverage ControlPrice MaintenanceSherman Antitrust ActTwenty-First AmendmentState Action ImmunityRetail Liquor SalesBelow Cost SalesAntitrust LawState RegulationMarket Competition
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Weslin

This case involves eleven defendants, including Norman Weslin, charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) after being arrested outside a Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York. Defendant Weslin moved to dismiss the information, arguing that FACE is unconstitutional. Chief Judge Larimer denied the motion, finding FACE to be content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny. The court upheld FACE against First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause challenges, and also affirmed that it is a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, as it regulates activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ActFirst AmendmentFree SpeechFree Exercise of ReligionCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeAbortion Clinic ProtestsPhysical ObstructionContent-Neutral RegulationIntermediate Scrutiny
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fire Insurance v. United Limousine Service, Inc.

This case involves a lawsuit filed by United States Fire Insurance Company against Holyland Travel Brokerage Corp. and Abdul Ziad, among others, alleging participation in an insurance fraud scheme and unjust enrichment. The initial complaint included RICO violations, but the RICO claims against Holyland and Ziad were dismissed without prejudice. The remaining claim against these defendants was a state common law claim of unjust enrichment. Holyland and Ziad moved to dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing against the exercise of pendent party jurisdiction. The court denied their motion, affirming its authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and finding none of the discretionary exceptions in § 1367(c) applicable.

Supplemental JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionRICO ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentInsurance FraudMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)28 U.S.C. § 1367Second CircuitFederal Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Di Giovanna v. Beth Israel Medical Center

Joseph Di Giovanna, a former director at Beth Israel Medical Center (BIMC), sued BIMC and Continuum Health Partners, Inc. for violating the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA). He alleged interference with his FMLA rights by being discouraged from taking leave to care for his father and unlawful retaliation through termination for exercising those rights. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting Di Giovanna was fired for documented poor performance, not FMLA use. The court, presided over by District Judge Lewis A. Kaplan, granted the defendants' motion. It found no admissible evidence of FMLA interference and concluded that Di Giovanna failed to prove his termination was motivated by his exercise of FMLA rights, despite assuming a prima facie case for retaliation.

FMLARetaliationInterferenceSummary JudgmentEmployment LawDiscriminationFamily LeavePerformance ReviewHuman ResourcesFederal Court
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddock v. City of New York

This appeal addresses the liability of the City of New York for the rape of a nine-year-old child by a Parks Department employee, James Johnson, who had a violent criminal history. Johnson was hired under the Work Relief Employment Program (WREP), which aimed to employ ex-convicts. The City failed to comply with its own personnel procedures to review Johnson's criminal record, which included past convictions for attempted rape and robbery. The court found that the City's failure to exercise informed discretion regarding Johnson's retention, despite knowing his criminal background, constituted negligent retention. The judgment of the Appellate Division, reinstating a reduced verdict of $2.5 million against the City, was affirmed, emphasizing that municipal immunity does not apply when the municipality violates its own internal rules and exercises no judgment or discretion.

Negligent RetentionMunicipal LiabilityGovernmental ImmunityDiscretionary vs. Ministerial ActsEx-Convict EmploymentPublic SafetyCriminal Background CheckForeseeability of HarmChild AbuseWork Relief Employment Program
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund

Claimant, an exercise rider at Belmont Racetrack, suffered pelvic injuries in December 2003 while working a horse. Despite an expired license, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his case and determined he was a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, holding the Fund responsible for medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed, referencing *Matter of Adames v New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.* (15 AD3d 696 [2005]), which established that an exercise rider is a covered employee of the Fund under relevant Workers’ Compensation Law and Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law provisions, irrespective of license expiration. The court found the Fund’s remaining contentions lacked merit.

Exercise RiderWorkers' CompensationJockey Injury Compensation FundExpired LicenseCovered EmployeeThoroughbred RacingPelvic InjuryAppellate DecisionBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 736 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