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

In re Daughtry A.

In a neglect proceeding under Family Court Act article 10, the mother appealed an amended order of fact-finding and disposition and an order of protection from the Family Court, Kings County. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order of protection, deeming it academic due to its expiration. The court affirmed the amended order of fact-finding and disposition, finding no violation of the mother's due process rights concerning the admission of her statements. The petitioner agency successfully established a prima facie case of neglect, which the mother failed to rebut with a credible explanation for the child's injuries.

Neglect ProceedingFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewFact-FindingDispositional HearingsOrder of ProtectionDue ProcessAdmissions as EvidencePrima Facie CasePreponderance of Evidence
References
7
Case No. ADJ6886930
Regular
Oct 11, 2010

MARIA TERESA RODRIGUEZ vs. MOUNTAIN F ENTERPRISES INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration of an order that reduced the agreed-upon attorney's fee in a death benefit and serious and willful misconduct compromise and release. The Board found the WCJ's reasons for the reduction inadequate and intended to amend the order to approve the original $38,500 attorney's fee. This is being done after providing applicant's counsel an opportunity to comply with procedural requirements regarding fee increases, and applicant notice of her right to seek independent counsel.

AMENDED COMPROMISE AND RELEASESERIOUS AND WILLFUL MISCONDUCTPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONGUARDIAN AD LITEMATTORNEY'S FEE REDUCTIONINDUSTRIAL INJURYDEATH CLAIMDEPENDENTSWAGESLABOR CODE
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosas v. Alice's Tea Cup, LLC

This Memorandum and Order addresses motions in a labor dispute brought by current and former employees against Alice’s Tea Cup, LLC and related entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). The plaintiffs sought a protective order to prevent discovery into their immigration status, tax returns, and current employers, arguing irrelevance and undue prejudice. The court granted the protective order, finding this information irrelevant to wage claims and emphasizing the potential for intimidation. The court also granted the plaintiffs leave to amend their complaint to add Lauren Fox as a defendant, Teofilio Toribio as an opt-in plaintiff, and to remove class action allegations.

FLSANYLLWage and HourOvertimeProtective OrderDiscoveryImmigration StatusTax ReturnsCurrent EmployerLeave to Amend
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

Napolitano v. Corp.

The defendant DGM-I Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend their complaint. The case involves a construction site accident where a worker sustained injuries after falling through a floor opening. The plaintiffs sought to add a cause of action under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court's decision to allow the amendment was upheld on appeal, as the appellant failed to demonstrate any prejudice or surprise from the delay. Furthermore, a prior order by Justice Colabella was not considered a bar to the amendment under the doctrine of law of the case.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240 (1)Motion to AmendComplaintAppellate ReviewProcedural LawPrejudiceLaw of the CaseNew York
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 1993

Girardin v. Town of Hempstead

The plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, dated May 24, 1993. This order granted the defendants' motion to amend their answers to include the affirmative defense of res judicata and subsequently dismissed the complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding that the Supreme Court did not improvidently exercise its discretion in granting leave to amend. The appellate court noted that the defense of res judicata was not available at the time of joinder of issue, as Workers’ Compensation determinations were still pending. The delay in filing the motion to amend after these determinations was not considered excessive. The plaintiffs' claim of prejudice due to the delay was rejected, as they had the opportunity to appeal the Workers’ Compensation determinations but chose not to.

Personal InjuriesRes JudicataCPLR 3025(b)Leave to AmendAffirmative DefenseDismissal of ComplaintAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionPrejudiceSupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 1992

Tushaj v. Elm Management Ass'n

The case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, dated July 10, 1992. Defendant Elm Management Association, Inc. sought to amend its answer to include a workers’ compensation affirmative defense and for summary judgment on that defense, but the initial motion was denied. The appellate court modified the order, granting Elm Management Association, Inc. leave to amend its answer to assert the defense, while affirming the remainder of the lower court's decision. Evidence from the plaintiff's deposition suggested Elm Management Association, Inc. exerted control over the plaintiff, raising a factual question about a potential special employment relationship and applicability of workers' compensation. The court emphasized that leave to amend pleadings should be freely granted unless there is evidence of prejudice or unfair surprise.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeAffirmative DefenseAmendment of PleadingsSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureEmployment RelationshipControl TestPrejudiceThird-Party Defendant
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 1979

Bay v. New York Medical College Flower & Fifth Avenue

In a medical malpractice action, defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, that denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer to include the affirmative defense of workers' compensation. The appellate court reversed the order, granting the motion and extending the defendants' time to answer. The court disagreed with the Special Term's determination that the defendants' two-year delay in seeking the amendment was unreasonable and that plaintiffs would be substantially prejudiced. It noted that the plaintiff wife failed to file a workers' compensation claim within the two-year period despite being aware of her condition and employment with the defendant hospital, implying potential eligibility for benefits. The decision clarifies that granting the motion does not preclude further exploration of whether workers' compensation is the exclusive remedy in cases where employees utilize employer-furnished services.

Medical MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseAmended AnswerPrejudiceExclusive RemedyStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewEmployment BenefitsBreast Cancer
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larrier v. Miller

This case involves an action brought by a plaintiff against a defendant union seeking damages for assault and battery. The union filed a motion to dismiss the first cause of action alleged in the amended complaint. The court affirmed the order denying the union's motion to dismiss, insofar as appealed from. Additionally, the plaintiff was granted leave to serve a second amended complaint concerning the second cause of action within ten days from the entry of the order.

Assault and BatteryMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintUnion LiabilityDamagesCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCosts and DisbursementsPanel DecisionLeave to Amend
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alatorre v. Hee Ju Chun

The defendants appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The first order denied their motion for leave to serve an amended answer, and the second denied leave to renew that prior motion. The appellate court reversed the first order, granting the defendants leave to amend their answer. The court reasoned that the proposed amendment, concerning the potential applicability of Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 11 and 29 (6) exclusive remedy provisions, was not palpably insufficient or devoid of merit, as its viability depended on unresolved issues of fact. Furthermore, the plaintiff, having received workers' compensation benefits and being aware of a co-employee defendant, would not face surprise or prejudice. Consequently, the appeal from the second order was dismissed as academic.

personal injuryamended answerleave to amendworkers' compensation lawexclusive remedyco-employee liabilityappellate proceduremotion to renewCPLR 3025(b)judicial discretion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1996

Kinlock v. Doherty

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an amended order and judgment that granted the petitioner's application under CPLR article 78. The court vacated the respondent's determination to terminate the petitioner's employment as a sanitation worker and ordered the petitioner to be restored to service retroactively. The matter was remanded to the respondent for the implementation of a monetary sanction recommended by the Administrative Law Judge. The Supreme Court concluded that the termination was arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, and shocking to the conscience of the court, citing numerous instances where less severe penalties were imposed for similar sick leave policy violations.

employment terminationsanitation workersick leave policyarbitrary and capriciousabuse of discretiondisproportionate penaltyadministrative law judgeCPLR article 78reinstatementmonetary sanction
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 25,290 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