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

Clarke v. LR SYSTEMS

Walter Clarke, a 74-year-old former employee of Favorite Plastics, Inc., filed a products liability action against LR Systems and Lasits Rohline Service, Inc. for injuries sustained in an industrial accident on August 13, 1996. Clarke's right hand was pulled into an SG Granulator 300 machine, resulting in the loss of part of his thumb and injury to three fingers. He alleged negligence, strict products liability, and breach of warranty, claiming inadequate warnings and a design defect in the grinder. The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the failure-to-warn claim, finding Clarke was aware of the danger. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied on the defective design claims, ruling that the expert testimony regarding the feasibility of an interlocked guard was admissible.

Products LiabilityIndustrial AccidentGranulator MachineDesign DefectFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentExpert TestimonyNip Point HazardV-belt DriveMachine Safety
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05131 [186 AD3d 1149]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2020

Matter of Clarke v. City of New York

Petitioner Adrianne Clarke sought to annul the New York City Transit Authority's (NYCTA) decision to deny her differential pay following a deep vein thrombosis (DVT) injury sustained during a work-related flight. The NYCTA denied the request, citing Clarke's late notification of the injury and the uncertainty surrounding whether her travel constituted a "workplace activity" for differential pay eligibility. The Supreme Court upheld the NYCTA's decision as rationally based, noting that traveling to work is generally not considered a workplace activity and Clarke had a personal history of DVT. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the denial of differential pay.

Differential PayDeep Vein ThrombosisWorkplace InjuryTimely NoticeAssigned DutyTravel TimeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewRational BasisWorkers' Compensation Benefits
References
2
Case No. 2014-2010 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 2017

Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21st Century Ins. Co.

The case *Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C. v 21st Century Ins. Co.*, decided on September 22, 2017, by the Appellate Term, Second Department, involved an appeal concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff-appellant, Charles Deng Acupuncture, P.C., challenged an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant-respondent's cross-motion for summary judgment and to compel disclosure. The Appellate Term affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish its prima facie entitlement to summary judgment regarding claim denials. The court also affirmed that insurers may use the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture services by chiropractors to determine payments for licensed acupuncturists and upheld the defendant's right to discovery due to the plaintiff's untimely objections.

no-fault insurancesummary judgmentacupuncture servicesCPT codesworkers' compensation fee schedulediscovery disputeappellate reviewmedical billinginsurance claimstimely denial
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Charles BB.

Charles BB. was adjudicated a neglected child and placed with a petitioner in a residential facility. The petitioner sought an extension of placement for up to one year, citing the parents' incarceration and the child's continued need for structured care due to disruptive behavior. Family Court granted the extension, prompting an appeal by the infant's Law Guardian. The appellate court rejected arguments for dismissal based on mootness and a premature notice of appeal, choosing to address the merits. It found Family Court's decision to be supported by evidence, including a clinical update detailing two serious negative incidents involving the infant. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the infant's continued placement was warranted and that less restrictive alternatives were not erroneously overlooked.

Child NeglectExtension of PlacementFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewMootness DoctrineProcedural DefectPremature Notice of AppealResidential PlacementLaw GuardianInfant's Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Clarke

The case involves the appeal of Brian Clarke's conviction for felony murder, robbery in the first degree, and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree. The initial judgment sentenced him to 25 years to life for murder in the second degree. On appeal, the court found that the defendant received meaningful representation and the motion to vacate judgment was properly denied. However, the appellate court, exercising discretion in the interest of justice, reduced the sentence for murder in the second degree to a term of 15 years to life. This modification was based on factors such as it being the defendant's first offense, his below-average intelligence, and the jury's conviction solely on the felony-murder count. A dissenting opinion argued against the sentence reduction, highlighting the brutal nature of the crime—a cold-blooded execution during a robbery—and the defendant's background as an admitted drug dealer.

Criminal LawFelony MurderRobberyCriminal Possession of WeaponSentence ReductionAppellate ReviewProsecutorial MisconductSuppression MotionMeaningful RepresentationMental Capacity
References
9
Case No. 93-CV-1524
Regular Panel Decision

Clarke v. TRW, INC.

This case involves a whistleblower lawsuit filed by four former employees—Peter J. Clarke, Edward J. Dixon, Brian R. Fisher, and Paul J. Wheeler—against their former employer, TRW, Inc. The plaintiffs allege retaliation under New York's whistleblower law (N.Y.Lab.Law § 740) for reporting safety concerns related to defective automobile parts manufactured by TRW, specifically the Carter RFI Module and Ford ISO Relay. The alleged defects, which included improper testing and manufacturing flaws, presented a substantial danger of vehicle fires and loss of brake control. The court, addressing TRW's motion to dismiss and the plaintiffs' cross-motion to file a second amended complaint, ruled that the plaintiffs' claims based on violations of 49 U.S.C. §§ 30116 and 30118 were sufficiently pleaded to proceed. However, claims relying on 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.105, 571.301, and 49 U.S.C. §§ 30112, 30115, 30122 were dismissed as these regulations apply to finished vehicles, not component parts. The court also denied the plaintiffs' requests for punitive damages and a jury trial, citing that these are not available remedies under N.Y.Lab.Law § 740(5). Ultimately, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiffs were granted partial leave to amend their complaint within 45 days.

WhistleblowerRetaliationMotor Vehicle SafetyProduct LiabilityManufacturing DefectsComponent PartsFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissMotion to AmendNTMVSA
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1989

In re the Guardianship of Charles Frederick Eugene M.

This case concerns an appeal by a petitioner agency from a Family Court order dismissing a petition to terminate a mother's parental rights due to permanent neglect. The mother was incarcerated for sexually abusing her child, Charles M., and the agency maintained contact and assisted her in planning for the child's future during her incarceration. The Family Court had found that the mother's plan for the child's return after her release was not unrealistic, but the appellate court found that the agency made diligent efforts and the mother failed to plan realistically for over a year. The appellate court emphasized that incarceration does not excuse a parent's responsibility to plan for their child's future, and the mother had failed to address her underlying issues. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's decision, granted the petition for termination of parental rights, and remanded the matter for a dispositional hearing.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentDiligent EffortsPlanning for ChildSexual AbuseSodomyChild EndangermentFamily LawChild Welfare
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanna v. Clarke

Albert J. Hanna, an executive delegate of Buffalo Local No. 1, brought an action against Paul J. Clarke, president of the Empire State Telephone Workers’ Organization, seeking a declaratory judgment. Hanna challenged his removal by the union's executive committee for allegedly not taking an active part in a meeting. He argued he was deprived of a fair hearing, as his request for postponement due to dental surgery was denied, and that his actions did not warrant charges under the union's constitution. The court found that while Hanna's actions were "childish, undignified and irritating," they did not justify the charges. Consequently, the court granted Hanna a declaratory judgment, declaring the executive committee's action null and void and enjoining them from disapproving his redesignation on the grounds previously stated.

Declaratory JudgmentUnion LawExecutive DelegateFair HearingDue ProcessUnion ConstitutionInternal Union DisputeWorkers' RightsPostponement RefusalExecutive Committee
References
1
Case No. 2016-790 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2017

751 Union St., LLC v. Charles

This case concerns an appeal by 751 Union Street, LLC, the landlord, against Linda Charles, the tenant, in a holdover summary proceeding. The landlord alleged the tenant engaged in nuisance behavior, including verbal and physical assaults on building staff and the owner's family, and disturbing a neighbor by banging on the ceiling. The Civil Court initially granted the tenant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the petition entirely. The Appellate Term reversed this decision in part, ruling that while the allegation of disturbing a neighbor required a notice to cure per the lease, the other nine allegations concerning landlord and his employees did not. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment only for the ceiling-banging allegation, allowing the remaining claims to proceed.

holdover proceedingnuisancesummary judgmentnotice to cureRent Stabilization Codelease agreementlandlord-tenant disputeverbal abusephysical assaultappellate review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 355 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