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
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07628
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2017

Solorzano v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

Juan Maria Solorzano, an asbestos and lead abatement worker, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction project manager, following a fall from scaffolding. Solorzano alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied his summary judgment motion due to inconsistencies in his deposition testimony regarding the accident's cause. A jury subsequently ruled in favor of Skanska, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that Solorzano failed to establish a prima facie case under the Labor Law provisions, citing his contradictory testimony and the presence of guardrails on the scaffold.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law violationsSummary judgmentJury verdictAppellate reviewPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyNegligenceProximate causeDeposition inconsistency
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Yvonne Fleming, an African-American woman and former Director of Human Resources and Payroll for MaxMara USA, Inc., sued her employer and two individual supervisors, John Gleeson and Luigi Caroggio, alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law. Fleming claimed that Gleeson made a racially charged comment, and both Gleeson and Caroggio subjected her to poor treatment and derogatory remarks. She also asserted retaliation after reporting alleged preferential treatment of Italian employees. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Fleming's termination, including performance issues and failure to follow company protocols. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, finding that Fleming failed to establish a prima facie case for race discrimination (partially due to being replaced by another African-American woman), that the hostile work environment claims lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness or were time-barred, and that the retaliation claims did not overcome the defendants' legitimate business reasons.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York City Human Rights LawSummary Judgment MotionAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
63
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07307 [154 AD3d 538]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Cortes v. Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to defendant Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., and dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff Luis Cortes, an employee of Phoenix Constructors, a joint venture that included Skanska, fell from a stair tower. The court ruled that plaintiff's exclusive remedy against Skanska was workers' compensation, as Skanska was a member of his employer's joint venture. The plaintiff's arguments regarding the alter ego doctrine and an independent duty owed by Skanska were rejected, citing established case law which prohibits treating an employer as a dual legal personality.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawEmployer LiabilityDual Legal PersonalityStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Injury
References
5
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02098 [181 AD3d 523]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2020

Rossi v. Doka USA, Ltd.

Plaintiff Domenick Rossi, a carpenter, sustained injuries while using a ratchet at a World Trade Center construction site, asserting a product liability claim against defendant Doka USA, Ltd., which supplied the tool. The Supreme Court dismissed Rossi's complaint for spoliation of evidence (the missing ratchet) and denied his cross-motion for sanctions against Doka for alleged email destruction. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the absence of the ratchet did not fatally prejudice Doka's defense, thus reinstating Rossi's complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Rossi's cross-motion for spoliation sanctions, finding insufficient evidence of Doka's culpable conduct regarding email preservation.

Product liabilitySpoliation of evidenceDesign defectRatchetWorkplace injuryConstruction accidentAppellate procedureSanctionsNegligenceProximate cause
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 20,695 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