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
Mar 04, 2005

Warren v. International Business MacHines Corp.

Michael Warren, a U.S. Army Reserve member, sued IBM for employment discrimination after his termination shortly after returning from a training mission. He alleged discrimination based on his military service, violating USERRA and New York Military Law. IBM moved for summary judgment, asserting Warren was fired for making a death threat and violating a zero-tolerance policy. The court found that a reasonable jury could determine IBM's stated reason was pretextual and that Warren's reservist status was a motivating factor in his dismissal. Consequently, the court denied IBM's motion for summary judgment on the core discrimination claims (§ 4311 and § 317 ¶ 4) but granted it for the reemployment claims (§ 4312 and § 317 ¶ 1) and the § 4316 claim, interpreting "period of service" as consecutive days.

Employment DiscriminationMilitary Service DiscriminationUSERRANew York Military LawSummary JudgmentPretextReservist RightsWrongful TerminationStatutory InterpretationBurden of Proof
References
26
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02454 [160 AD3d 714]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Moody v. Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP

Plaintiff William Moody, a maintenance worker, sustained back injuries while lifting a heavy garbage bag during his employment for a nonparty providing property management services. He commenced a personal injury action against Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP (incorrectly sued as Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP), a tenant in the building where the accident occurred. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating the garbage bag was not over an agreed weight and the injury was an inherent risk of the plaintiff's work. The defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was therefore granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMaintenance WorkerWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityInherent RiskDuty of CareNegligenceTenant Liability
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06279 [243 AD3d 476]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2025

InkMango, Inc. v. Warren

This case concerns defamation claims brought by InkMango, Inc., doing business as The Juggernaut, an independent media startup, against reporter Katie Warren and news organization Business Insider. The plaintiff alleged that a March 5, 2024 article written by Warren contained false and defamatory statements. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the complaint under CPLR 3211 (g) and awarded defendants costs, disbursements, and reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Civil Rights Law § 70-a (1) (a). The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division held that the defamation claims involved 'public petition and participation,' triggering the anti-SLAPP law and requiring plaintiff to demonstrate a 'substantial basis' in law by clear and convincing evidence of actual malice. The court found that the plaintiff failed to meet this heightened burden, as the complaint did not sufficiently allege actual malice or that the entire article was defamatory, nor were arguments regarding the initial headline properly preserved. The court also affirmed the award of attorneys' fees to the defendants.

DefamationAnti-SLAPPLibelActual MalicePublic Petition and ParticipationAppellate ReviewDismissal of ComplaintAttorneys' FeesMedia LawFirst Department
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2011

Warren v. United States

Plaintiff Daniel Warren initiated an action against Federal and State Defendants, challenging the constitutionality of the Indian Gaming Regulatory Act (IGRA), the validity of the New York-Seneca Nation Gaming Compact, and a New York state law, while also alleging breach of trust obligations by federal defendants. The defendants filed motions to dismiss, and the plaintiff sought to amend the complaint. The court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend, deeming the proposed amendments futile. It granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, concluding that the plaintiff lacked standing for the Tenth Amendment and IGRA claims against federal defendants and that the Eleventh Amendment protected state defendants from state law claims. Furthermore, tribal sovereign immunity was found to apply to the proposed Seneca Nation defendants. Consequently, the case was dismissed with prejudice.

Indian Gaming Regulatory ActTribal SovereigntyTenth AmendmentEleventh AmendmentStanding (Law)Motion to DismissMotion to AmendAdministrative Procedure ActFederalismJudicial Review
References
74
Case No. CA 12-01329
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2013

MULLIN, CARL D. v. WASTE MANAGEMENT OF NEW YORK, LLC

Carl D. Mullin, an employee of Riccelli Enterprises, Inc., sustained injuries after falling from a ladder at a Waste Management of New York, LLC facility. Mullin initiated an action against Waste Management, which subsequently filed a third-party claim against Riccelli for breach of contract. Waste Management alleged that Riccelli failed to name it as an additional insured on various required insurance policies, including workers' compensation, commercial general liability, and automobile liability. The Supreme Court granted Waste Management's motion for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order, also upholding the denial of Riccelli's motion to introduce new evidence, deeming it untimely and unlikely to alter the determination.

Breach of ContractInsurance CoverageAdditional Insured ClauseSummary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmationThird-Party LitigationPersonal InjuryWorkplace AccidentLadder FallContractual Indemnity
References
2
Case No. 534171 534534
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

Matter of Banish v. Warren County Sheriff's Off.

Claimant, a patrol officer, appealed decisions denying workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury, which he asserted arose from an on-duty assault. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ's finding that the injury was not causally related, noting the claimant's delay in reporting and lack of medical evidence supporting causation at the time of the incident. Furthermore, the Board denied the claimant's application for reconsideration, as no new evidence was presented. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both Board decisions, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding against a causal relationship for the shoulder injury and that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying reconsideration, highlighting the distinction between Workers' Compensation Law and General Municipal Law § 207-c.

Workers' CompensationShoulder InjuryCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionGeneral Municipal LawReconsideration ApplicationPatrol OfficerSelf-Insured Employer
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

SW BY JW v. Warren

This case involves several plaintiffs, children with disabilities, who sued Sheila Warren, Orange County Department of Health, and County of Orange for alleged violations of federal and state laws, including the IDEA and Section 504. The plaintiffs claimed systemic failures by the defendants in providing adequate services, limiting therapy hours, improper insurance billing, and untimely evaluations. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss all claims. The court largely denied the motion to dismiss for the majority of the plaintiffs concerning their Section 504 claims and the requirement to exhaust administrative remedies, acknowledging allegations of systemic violations. However, the court granted the dismissal of the Section 1983 claim, all individual claims against Sheila Warren, and dismissed the Orange County Department of Health as a defendant. Plaintiff A.W.'s claims related to transportation and exhaustion of administrative remedies were also dismissed. The remaining plaintiffs (S.W., B.F., J.F., P.F., L.T.) will proceed with their action against the County of Orange.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Rehabilitation Act Section 504Early Intervention ProgramsSpecial Education ServicesAutism Spectrum DisorderApplied Behavior Analysis (ABA) TherapySystemic Policy ViolationsAdministrative Remedies ExhaustionProcedural SafeguardsMotion to Dismiss
References
58
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24048 [3 Misc 3d 347]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2004

Johnson v. Hudson Riv. Constr. Co., Inc.

This case addresses motions for summary judgment filed by defendants Hudson River Construction Co., Inc., Albany Asphalt & Aggregates Corp., and Robert C. Higley. The plaintiff, Carlynann V. Johnson, individually and as administratrix of the estate of Warren D. Johnson, sought damages for the death of Warren D. Johnson, who was crushed by a truck at a construction site. Defendants argued that Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 limited their liability to reckless conduct, eliminating a duty of care. The court denied the motions, holding that defendants failed to demonstrate a lack of duty to Johnson as an employee at a construction site and misapplied VTL § 1103, which does not apply to construction workers. The court also found that the defendants failed to establish that Johnson was the sole proximate cause of his injuries.

Summary Judgment MotionNegligence ActionConstruction Site FatalityWorkplace Safety DutyVehicle and Traffic Law InterpretationProximate Cause DisputeThird-Party LiabilityWrongful Death ClaimEmployer ResponsibilityHighway Construction Accident
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Warren v. Fischl

The plaintiff, Gregory Warren, a pro se litigant, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a conspiracy to present false and perjurious testimony in his criminal prosecution for drug-related crimes in Nassau County. The defendants, the Legal Aid Society of Nassau County, Matthew Muraskin, and Meryl Berkowitz (Legal Aid Defendants), moved to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint. The Court previously dismissed claims against Judge Jonas, Judge Kowtna, and the Nassau County Courts. In this decision, the Court granted the Legal Aid Defendants' motion to dismiss the Section 1983 conspiracy claim, finding the allegations too conclusory and vague to demonstrate an agreement to conspire. The Court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over a potential state law legal malpractice claim against the Legal Aid Defendants.

ConspiracyCivil RightsSection 1983Pro Se PlaintiffMotion to DismissFalse TestimonyPerjuryUnlawful ConvictionState Law ClaimSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 167 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