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. CA 10-01673
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

GRESS, MARLINO v. BROWN, BYRON

Plaintiffs, seasonal sanitation employees of the City of Buffalo, initiated a class action against Byron Brown, as Mayor, the City of Buffalo, and the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (BFSA). They sought damages alleging violations of the Buffalo Living Wage Ordinance. The Supreme Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, declaring that the BFSA lacked the authority to freeze their wages, and denied the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The court rejected the defendants' argument that the action should have been brought as a CPLR article 78 proceeding and concluded that the BFSA's statutory power to freeze wages did not apply to the plaintiffs because their wage increases were governed by the Living Wage Ordinance, not collective bargaining agreements.

Class ActionWage FreezeLiving Wage OrdinancePublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMunicipal LawSeasonal WorkersEmployment Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Byron v. Genovese Drug Stores, Inc.

The plaintiff, Carlyle Byron, initiated an action against Genovese Drug Stores, Inc. d/b/a Rite Aid, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act, New York Minimum Wage Act, New York State Human Rights Law, and the Civil Rights Act of 1866 for unpaid compensation, overtime, and discrimination. The defendant filed a motion to dismiss certain portions of the plaintiff's complaint, including claims from a previous lawsuit (Byron I) and a request for attorneys' fees from that prior litigation. The court determined that the plaintiff's amended complaint rendered many of the defendant's initial objections moot. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, noting that the claim for attorneys' fees from Byron I was premature to decide at this stage.

FLSANew York Minimum Wage ActNew York State Human Rights LawCivil Rights Act of 1866Employment DiscriminationOvertime WagesMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Attorneys' FeesPrior Litigation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharpe v. MCI COMMUNICATIONS SERVICES, INC.

Byron Sharpe, an African-American former employee of MCI Communications Services, Inc., filed a lawsuit alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and a racially hostile work environment after his employment was terminated as part of a Reduction in Force in March 2006. Sharpe had previously complained about his direct manager's confrontational style, leading to the manager's reassignment. The court granted MCI's motion for summary judgment, finding that Sharpe failed to provide sufficient evidence to support his claims. Specifically, the court concluded that no reasonable jury could find that Sharpe was subjected to a hostile work environment due to his race, nor that his termination was motivated by race or in retaliation for his complaints. The court also dismissed his claims under State and City Human Rights Laws.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary Judgment MotionTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawWorkplace LayoffPretextDiscriminatory Intent
References
37
Case No. CA 15-00716
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2015

FRONCE, RICHARD J. v. PORT BYRON TELEPHONE COMPANY, INC.

Plaintiff commenced this Labor Law action seeking damages for injuries he sustained when he fell from an aerial bucket attached to a boom on a bucket truck while attempting to remove cables from a utility pole on defendants’ property. Plaintiff appeals and defendants cross-appeal from an order that denied defendants’ motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and denied plaintiff’s cross motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability with respect to the section 240 (1) cause of action. The Court found a nexus between defendants and plaintiff due to an easement. The Supreme Court erred in denying plaintiff's cross motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as plaintiff was engaged in a covered activity and the accident involved an elevation-related hazard. Defendants failed to raise a triable issue of fact that plaintiff's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident, and comparative negligence is not a defense under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor LawPersonal InjuryAerial Bucket FallUtility Pole AccidentEasementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCausationComparative NegligenceElevation-related Hazard
References
14
Case No. ADJ1435798 (ANA 0370618)
Regular
May 21, 2014

Byron Nunez vs. KRISPY CREAM, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a Petition for Removal in the case of Byron Nunez v. Krispy Kreme, et al. The administrative law judge's report, which the Board adopted, found that the claims administrators, Specialty Risk Services (SRS) and Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc. (Sedgwick CMS), had a duty to know the identity of their insurance carrier and when it was liquidated. The settlement entered into was deemed a unilateral mistake by SRS and Sedgwick CMS. Therefore, the petition was denied based on these failures.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJ reportSpecialty Risk ServicesSedgwick Claims Management Servicesinsurance carrierliquidationLumberman's Mutualsettlementlien claimant
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gress v. Brown

Plaintiffs, seasonal sanitation employees of the City of Buffalo, initiated a class action alleging that the City and Mayor Byron Brown failed to pay them in accordance with the Buffalo Living Wage Ordinance. Defendants, including the Buffalo Fiscal Stability Authority (BFSA), appealed a judgment that granted plaintiffs partial summary judgment, declaring the BFSA lacked authority to freeze their wages. The court rejected defendants' argument that the action was a CPLR article 78 proceeding, thus a four-month statute of limitations did not apply, finding the action primarily sought damages for wage violations. It further affirmed that the BFSA's wage freeze was inapplicable to plaintiffs because their wage increases stemmed from the Living Wage Ordinance, not a collective bargaining agreement, placing them outside the BFSA's authority.

Living Wage OrdinanceWage DisputeClass ActionBuffalo Fiscal Stability AuthorityPublic Authorities LawMunicipal EmployeesWage FreezeSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsCollective Bargaining
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05014 [197 AD3d 1503]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2021

Matter of Brown v. Erie County Bd. of Elections

Petitioner Byron W. Brown, after an unsuccessful Democratic primary bid for Mayor of Buffalo, submitted an independent nominating petition to the Erie County Board of Elections. The Board invalidated the petition, deeming it untimely under Election Law § 6-158 (9). Supreme Court subsequently granted Brown's petition, declared the filing deadline unconstitutional, and ordered his name added to the general election ballot. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, dismissed the petition, and vacated the prior declaration. The appellate court found that Election Law § 6-158 (9) imposes only a minimal burden on constitutional rights, which is justified by legitimate state interests, thereby upholding its constitutionality.

Election LawIndependent Nominating PetitionBallot AccessConstitutional ChallengeFiling DeadlinesPrimary ElectionJudicial ScrutinyAppellate DivisionCandidate RightsVoter Empowerment Act
References
19
Case No. ADJ11978261
Regular
Jan 06, 2023

BYRON DIAZ vs. SOUTHBAY LOGISTICS INTERNATIONAL, LLC, STARSTONE NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, TORUS NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, ENSTAR, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a workers' compensation claim by Byron Diaz against Southbay Logistics International for cumulative trauma injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, modifying the original award. They found the applicant's date of injury under Labor Code Section 5412 to be March 4, 2019, based on medical evidence showing his knowledge and disability. Furthermore, the Board determined the applicant sustained injury AOE/COE to his low back, left shoulder, and left elbow from September 1, 2017, to October 17, 2018. All other issues were deferred for further proceedings at the trial level.

Labor Code section 5412Labor Code section 5500.5date of injurycumulative injuryoccupational diseasePetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardOpinion and Orderadministrative law judgesubstantial evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2014

Fronce v. Port Byron Telephone Co.

The plaintiff sustained injuries after falling from an aerial bucket while removing cables from a utility pole on the defendants' property, leading to a Labor Law action. The Supreme Court denied both the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability. On appeal, the court found the defendants to be owners under the Labor Law due to an easement granted to the plaintiff's employer's predecessor. The court also determined that the Supreme Court erred in denying the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment, concluding that the plaintiff established the causal link between his injuries and the violation of the defendants' nondelegable duty, and that his conduct was not the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, the order was modified to grant the plaintiff's cross-motion and affirmed as modified.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Personal InjuryAerial Bucket FallUtility PoleEasementOwner LiabilitySummary JudgmentCross-MotionProximate CauseComparative Negligence
References
16
Case No. ADJ1715257
Regular
Dec 10, 2010

BYRON BREAULT vs. F MCLINTOCKS SALOON, ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the prior award, finding the record inadequate to support the finding of 100% permanent disability. The Board noted due process concerns due to the inadequate record and the WCJ's lack of specific evidentiary support for the decision. The case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings to create a proper record and address vocational evidence concerning earning capacity. The WCJ must ensure all evidence is formally offered and ruled upon, and the decision must be based on specific evidence, not personal opinion.

Petition for ReconsiderationGood Cause to ReopenPermanent Disability RatingVocational Rehabilitation ExpertDue ProcessInadequate RecordSub Rosa VideoSubstantial EvidenceTotal Loss of Earning CapacityFuture Earning Capacity
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 19 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