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
Aug 21, 1997

Capers v. Giuliani

Plaintiffs, public-assistance recipients in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP), alleged unsafe working conditions in their sanitation-related assignments, claiming violations of OSHA standards and inadequate provision of protective gear, facilities, and training. They also contended that regular City employees received more favorable treatment and a better grievance procedure. The Supreme Court initially granted plaintiffs' motion for injunctive relief and class certification, while denying defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, dismissing the complaint on procedural grounds due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies as required by the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (Labor Law § 27-a) and the Social Services Law. The court emphasized that administrative agencies have exclusive original jurisdiction over such matters, and judicial review is only permissible after administrative channels have been exhausted. The preliminary injunction was also found to be improperly granted due to a lack of factual findings.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Public Employee Safety and Health ActExhaustion of Administrative RemediesInjunctive ReliefClass CertificationOccupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Labor LawSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

This Memorandum & Order addresses plaintiffs' objections to a Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding class certification. Plaintiffs Andrew Parker and Eric De-Brauwere sued Time Warner Cable, alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 by disclosing subscriber information. District Judge Glasser adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, denying class certification for monetary claims under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the predominance of monetary relief, and denying full certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because a class action was deemed not superior given the statutory provisions for individual remedies. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation were denied, and the recommendations were adopted.

Class ActionClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Cable Communications Policy ActSubscriber PrivacyMonetary ReliefInjunctive ReliefEastern District of New YorkMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brukhman v. Giuliani

This case addresses a dispute between welfare recipients participating in New York City's Work Experience Program (WEP) and City and State social services departments. Plaintiffs, recipients of Home Relief (HR) and Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC), claimed they were not receiving fair economic credit for work performed, as their hours were calculated using the Federal minimum wage instead of comparable wages for similar work. They sought class certification and a preliminary injunction. The court granted class certification and intervention for proposed plaintiffs-intervenors. It also denied the defendants' cross-motions to dismiss, ruling that administrative remedies would be futile. Ultimately, the court granted a preliminary injunction, mandating that the City defendants prospectively calculate WEP participants' hours based on the higher of the State/Federal minimum wage or the rate for comparable work by regular employees, citing Social Services Law and the New York State Constitution.

Work Experience Program (WEP)Welfare ReformPublic AssistanceHome Relief (HR)Aid to Families with Dependent Children (ADC)Class ActionPreliminary InjunctionWage ComparabilityMinimum Wage LawSocial Services Legislation
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2007

Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the burden of establishing class certification criteria rests with the party seeking it, and the class certification statute should be liberally construed. Despite inconsistencies in the class representative's testimony and variations in damages among different trades, the court found sufficient evidence for numerosity and commonality of claims. The decision reiterates that the inquiry into a claim's merit for class certification is limited and not a substitute for summary judgment or trial.

Class ActionClass CertificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary BasisNumerosityCommonalityWage DisputesUnderpayment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1983

In re the Claim of Bruggeman

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant, suspended for criminal misconduct involving the sale of a controlled substance during non-working hours, was ineligible for benefits, charged with a recoverable overpayment due to willful misrepresentation, and penalized for future benefits. The claimant appealed, contending that the misconduct was unrelated to employment and that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities should prevent forfeiture of benefits. The court disagreed, affirming the Board's decision. It held that misconduct raising questions about a worker's integrity, even if during non-working hours, relates to work, and that the certificate of relief does not prevent the forfeiture of unemployment benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsCriminal MisconductMoral TurpitudeForfeiture of BenefitsWillful MisrepresentationCivil DisabilitiesCorrection LawLabor LawAppellate DivisionBoard Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Carey

Plaintiffs, a class of minors civilly committed to New York State Division for Youth camps as juvenile delinquents or persons in need of supervision, allege that various state officials have violated their constitutional right to be free from involuntary servitude and various sections of the Fair Labor Standards Act. They seek declaratory, injunctive, and damage relief. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity and that no constitutional rights were violated, and challenged the applicability of the Thirteenth Amendment and FLSA to civilly committed juveniles. They also opposed class certification. The court denied the motions to dismiss, finding no Eleventh Amendment bar to prospective injunctive relief or individual liability, and that the Thirteenth Amendment and FLSA could apply to civilly committed individuals based on the allegations of excessive work. The court also granted class certification for the involuntary servitude and declaratory judgment under FLSA claims, but denied class action treatment for FLSA damages due to statutory limitations.

Juvenile DelinquencyInvoluntary ServitudeFair Labor Standards ActCivil CommitmentClass Action CertificationEleventh AmendmentThirteenth AmendmentFederal Court JurisdictionProspective Injunctive ReliefQualified Immunity
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duchene v. Michael L. Cetta, Inc.

Plaintiffs, current and former waiters at Sparks Steak House, initiated litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law, alleging the unlawful diversion of their tips. Following a previous order for the FLSA claim to proceed as a collective action, the plaintiffs moved for class action certification for all waiters employed by Sparks from June 14, 2000, onwards. The defendant opposed this, challenging supplemental jurisdiction and class certification requirements. However, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction and found that the class met all necessary criteria, including numerosity and superiority. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawTip DiversionWage and Hour ClaimsCollective ActionSupplemental JurisdictionRule 23(b)(3)Numerosity RequirementSuperiority Requirement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vengurlekar v. Silverline Technologies, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Gajanan Vengurlekar and Umesh Pachpande brought a class action alleging violations of ERISA, FLSA, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, along with state common law claims, against Silver-line Technologies, Inc., SeraNova, Inc., and affiliated entities. They sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) or alternatively under Rule 23(b)(3). The court denied class certification in its entirety. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was found inappropriate because the primary relief sought was monetary damages. Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) was denied due to insufficient numerosity for ERISA claims, lack of similarly situated plaintiffs for the FLSA claim (which was dismissed sua sponte as plaintiffs were exempt), and issues with commonality, typicality, and predominance for the state law claims, particularly concerning the extraterritorial application of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Class ActionERISA ViolationsFLSA ViolationsNew Jersey Wage Payment LawClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Numerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality Requirement
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Anjost Corp.

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Anjost Corporation and its principals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including issues with minimum wage, overtime pay, tip withholding, and uniform costs. The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, following a prior conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Evaluating the proposed classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were largely met. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification in a modified form, establishing three specific classes: a Tipped Employee Class, a Spread of Hours and Wage Statement Class, and a Uniform Claims Class. The decision also included orders for the defendants to disclose class member information and for both parties to jointly prepare a proposed class notice.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and Hour ClaimsOvertime WagesMinimum WageTip WithholdingUniform CostsWage StatementsSpread of Hours Premium
References
71
Showing 1-10 of 1,020 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