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

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rolon v. Henneman

Plaintiff Dennis Rolon, a police officer, sued Sergeant Ari Moskowitz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations for false disciplinary charges and testimony that led to his suspension. The court considered Moskowitz's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that Rolon failed to state a claim for false testimony because Moskowitz's testimony was struck from the record and disbelieved. Additionally, Rolon's claims for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence failed because his Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, as he faced administrative rather than criminal charges, and suffered no deprivation of liberty, only property loss. Consequently, Moskowitz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Due processSection 1983False disciplinary chargesAbsolute immunityQualified immunityMalicious prosecutionFabrication of evidenceFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rutherford v. Katonah-Lewisboro School District

Kathleen Rutherford, a public school teacher, sued Katonah-Lewisboro School District and two superintendents under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of her Fourteenth Amendment rights (substantive due process and privacy) and First Amendment right to free association. Rutherford claimed she was improperly suspended, investigated, transferred, and subjected to a gag order preventing communication with colleagues and her union representative, and that her ordered psychiatric evaluation was publicly disclosed. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The Court granted the motion for all substantive due process claims and for the First Amendment claim against individual defendants based on qualified immunity. However, Rutherford's First Amendment free association claim against the Katonah-Lewisboro School District survived the motion.

Public Employee RightsFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentSubstantive Due ProcessRight to PrivacyFree AssociationQualified ImmunitySchool District LiabilityTeacher SuspensionAdministrative Leave
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1999

Hassan v. Schweizer

Plaintiff, a 15-year-old, suffered severe hand injuries in 1985 while working at a sawmill owned by defendant Henry Schweizer. Plaintiff initiated a negligence lawsuit in 1990, alleging he was an employee and defendant failed to provide workers' compensation. Defendant denied this, asserting plaintiff was a trespasser, but later sought to amend his answer to claim workers' compensation as an exclusive remedy, an argument he knew about for years but intentionally suppressed. Plaintiff cross-moved to amend his complaint to include Labor Law § 133 violations and for summary judgment. The Supreme Court denied all motions. The appellate court affirmed the denial of both parties' motions, citing defendant's undue delay and prejudice, and finding plaintiff's complaint amendment unnecessary as Labor Law violations could be supported via the bill of particulars. It also denied plaintiff's summary judgment motion, stating proximate cause remained a factual issue.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ClaimAmended PleadingsCross AppealsUndue DelayPrejudiceLabor Law ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionProximate Cause
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Higgins v. NYP Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff Aaron Higgins, a former employee of NYP Holdings, Inc., moved to amend his complaint, which alleged racial and religious discrimination, retaliation, and FMLA violations. Defendant NYP cross-moved for sanctions. The Court denied most of Higgins's proposed amendments, citing the election of remedies doctrine for state and city human rights law claims, and finding that religious discrimination claims and most FMLA claims lacked sufficient pleading or were untimely. However, the Court granted leave to amend one FMLA retaliation claim related to leave taken for his daughter's hospitalization. The defendant's cross-motion for sanctions against plaintiff's counsel was denied, as the Court found the arguments, though largely unsuccessful, to be colorable.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationRetaliationFMLATitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRLMotion to AmendSanctions
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 1984

Goldstein v. Barco of California, Inc.

The fourth-party defendant, Nathan’s Famous of Massapequa, Inc., appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its motion to amend its fourth-party answer. The proposed amendment aimed to plead the exclusive remedy of the Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 as an affirmative defense. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, affirmed the order, holding that an employer may be liable in a third-party or fourth-party action for an employee's injury, even if a direct action by the employee against the employer would be barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law. The court cited precedent, including Dole v Dow Chem. Co., affirming that workers' compensation provisions do not bar such actions for indemnification or contribution. Consequently, the motion to amend the answer was deemed to be devoid of merit and was properly denied.

Workers' CompensationFourth-Party ActionAffirmative DefenseMotion to AmendIndemnificationContributionExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryPleading Amendment
References
7
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

Kleehammer v. Monroe County

This case involves an employment sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Kleehammer against Monroe County and Sheriff O'Flynn. Kleehammer alleges hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The hostile environment claim stemmed from a single incident involving a female visitor and a male inmate, and subsequent lewd comments by co-workers. Kleehammer also claimed retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment and for alleged denial of "Z time" leave. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the hostile environment and Equal Protection/Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient pleading and lack of employer liability for co-worker conduct, but allowed the retaliation claims (Third and Fourth causes of action) to proceed. The Court cautioned Plaintiff's counsel regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for good faith pleading.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissJudgment on the PleadingsTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSection 1983 ClaimPleading StandardsBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
References
46
Case No. 09-11893
Regular Panel Decision

Picard v. Estate of Mendelow (In re Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC)

This memorandum decision addresses a motion by Irving H. Picard, the Trustee for the liquidation of Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS), seeking leave to amend a complaint against Steven B. Mendelow and other defendants to recover fraudulent transfers. The Trustee's original complaint, filed in 2010, alleged that Mendelow knew or should have known about Madoff's Ponzi scheme. The court outlines the history of the BLMIS Ponzi scheme, Mendelow's role as a sophisticated investor and operator of feeder funds like Telfran, and how he allegedly received guaranteed returns and fictitious profits (Extra P&L) from BLMIS. The decision discusses the impact of evolving pleading standards and the applicability of the Section 546(e) safe harbor on the Trustee's claims. Despite objections from the defendants regarding undue delay and prejudice due to the deaths of key witnesses (Frank DiPascali and Steven B. Mendelow), the court grants the motion to amend, finding that the Trustee's proposed amendment plausibly alleges Mendelow's actual knowledge of the fraud and that this knowledge can be imputed to the other defendants through agency relationships. However, the motion is denied to the extent it seeks to recover transfers predating January 1, 2001, when BLMIS was formed as a limited liability company. Claims against subsequent transferees are dismissed without prejudice.

SIPA liquidationPonzi schemefraudulent transfersmotion to amend complaintactual knowledgeagency relationshipfeeder fundsfictitious profitssecurities law violationsbankruptcy trustee
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Feltman v. Kossoff & Kossoff LLP (In re TS Emp't, Inc.)

The case involves a Chapter 11 Trustee, James S. Feltman, for TS Employment, Inc. (TSE), who filed a second amended complaint against Kossoff & Kossoff LLP and Irwin Kossoff. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the Trustee's claims were barred by the Wagoner rule, which typically prevents a bankrupt corporation from suing third parties for fraud if corporate managers assisted in the fraud. The core issue is whether the defendants qualify as 'non-statutory insiders' to bypass the Wagoner rule's application. The Trustee alleged that the defendants effectively acted as TSE's CFO or Treasurer, controlling financial reporting and accounting, despite lacking formal titles. The Court, reviewing the allegations, concluded that the Second Amended Complaint sufficiently pleaded facts to support the inference that the defendants were non-statutory insiders, exercising significant control over TSE's financial operations. Therefore, the Court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, allowing the Trustee to proceed with the case.

Bankruptcy LawMotion to DismissWagoner RuleInsider ExceptionNon-Statutory InsiderFiduciary DutyCorporate ControlAccounting FraudChapter 11Trustee Standing
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 4,265 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