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

United States v. Christian

District Judge Vitaliano denied motions for judgment of acquittal and a new trial from defendants Harvey Christian, Anthony Christian, and Jason Quinn, who were convicted of racketeering, drug trafficking, and firearms offenses. The defendants challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, particularly concerning enterprise membership and individual involvement, and alleged prosecutorial misconduct during trial. The court affirmed the jury's verdict, finding sufficient evidence supported the "Park Hill Enterprise" and the defendants' participation in racketeering acts. It also rejected claims of prosecutorial impropriety and denied a request for a Kastigar hearing, concluding no new trial was warranted.

RacketeeringDrug TraffickingFirearms OffensesMurder in Aid of RacketeeringConspiracyJudgment of AcquittalNew Trial MotionRule 29Rule 33Sufficiency of Evidence
References
40
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02279 [182 AD3d 477]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2020

Donnelly v. Christian

Brian Patrick Donnelly (plaintiff) alleged he was injured when his co-worker, Stephen L. Christian (defendant), pulled a chair out from under him, causing him to fall. After receiving Workers' Compensation benefits, Donnelly sued Christian for assault. Christian moved for summary judgment, arguing that Workers' Compensation was the exclusive remedy against a co-employee. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion, noting that Workers' Compensation Law does not preclude recovery for intentional torts like assault. The court found issues of fact regarding whether Christian's conduct constituted an assault, specifically if it placed Donnelly in "imminent apprehension of harmful contact." The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order, agreeing that factual disputes prevented summary judgment.

AssaultIntentional TortWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityCo-employee LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorkplace InjuryFactual DisputeJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ3361459
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

Christiane Flynn vs. YOLANDA'S OF VENTURA, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and amended its prior decision regarding Christiane Flynn's injury. The applicant sustained injuries including right shoulder, brachial nerve, upper extremities, thoracic outlet syndrome, complex regional pain syndrome, psyche, and fibromyalgia. Her permanent disability was found to be 100% total, entitling her to weekly indemnity payments. A substantial attorney fee of $47,451.89 was deemed reasonable and ordered payable.

Christiane FlynnYolanda's of VenturaAmerican Home AssuranceAIG Claim ServicesADJ3361459VEN 0112129ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeWaitressOccupational Group 322
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03884 [161 AD3d 1497]
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2018

Matter of Garner v. Christian Contrs., Inc.

Mark Garner, a carpenter, filed an amended claim for workers' compensation benefits after sustaining injuries, alleging an employer-employee relationship with Christian Contractors, Inc. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, finding Garner to be an independent contractor. However, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this determination, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed and restored the case for further proceedings. Christian Contractors, Inc. appealed this interlocutory decision. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal, reiterating the principle against piecemeal review of workers' compensation cases when the Board's decision is nonfinal and does not resolve all substantive issues or a dispositive threshold legal question.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorInterlocutory AppealAppellate ProcedurePiecemeal ReviewJurisdictionBoard DecisionClaim Disallowance
References
7
Case No. 570642/16
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2017

Goldman v. Flynn

The Appellate Term, First Department, affirmed a Civil Court judgment that awarded possession to the landlords in a holdover summary proceeding. The trial court's detailed factual findings that tenant John Flynn committed a nuisance through a pattern of objectionable behavior, including verbal abuse and physical assault, were sustained. The appellate court found ample record evidence to support these findings. Appellants' claims regarding the necessity of a guardian ad litem and timely compliance with regulations were rejected as they were raised for the first time on appeal.

NuisanceHoldover ProceedingSummary ProceedingAppellate ReviewFactual FindingsVerbal AbusePhysical AssaultGuardian Ad LitemTimely ComplianceRent and Eviction Regulations
References
11
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06773
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2025

Sullivan v. Flynn

Loren S. Sullivan, an appellant, was injured after tripping on a wooden construction brace while taking measurements for custom kitchen cabinetry in a new home, leading him to sue the contractors, Gerald R. Flynn et al., for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling they had no duty to warn and that the readily observable brace was not a substantial factor in the injury. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, asserting that the defendants failed to demonstrate that the worksite was maintained in a reasonably safe condition, thereby leaving a question of fact for trial. The court emphasized that the open and obvious nature of a dangerous condition only negates the duty to warn, not the broader duty to maintain a safe workplace. Consequently, the case was remanded for further proceedings to determine if the defendants' worksite was indeed safe.

Safe Place to WorkConstruction Site SafetyTripping HazardLabor Law § 200Summary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceDuty to WarnDangerous ConditionQuestion of FactAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 532665
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Christian Vasquez

Christian Vasquez, a demolition worker, filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits after injuring his left ankle from a fall off a ladder at work. The employer and carrier controverted the claim, arguing a prior soccer injury and discrepancies in testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board found a work-related injury and awarded benefits, upholding the statutory presumption for unwitnessed accidents and crediting the claimant's testimony. The Board also relied on medical opinions that the severe Achilles tendon rupture could not have been sustained prior to the work incident given the claimant's ability to work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding its findings supported by substantial evidence and its credibility determinations reasonable.

Workers' CompensationAccidental InjuryLeft Ankle InjuryLadder FallDemolition WorkUnwitnessed AccidentStatutory PresumptionCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceCredibility Determination
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Christian v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

F. Christian sought accident disability retirement from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System for cataracts linked to a 1975 line-of-duty injury. Despite three ophthalmologists' reports indicating a causal link or aggravation of a pre-existing condition, the medical board denied the application twice, citing insufficient proof and without providing a basis for rejecting the medical evidence. The dissenting opinion by Justice Fein argued that the board's decision was arbitrary and capricious, advocating for a modification of the judgment to mandate reconsideration by the medical board. The dissent proposed that the medical board review all existing and new medical evidence and clearly state the reasons for its conclusions, emphasizing that the board members were not ophthalmologists and did not examine the petitioner.

Disability retirementCataractsLine of duty injuryMedical evidenceCausal relationshipAggravationPre-existing conditionMedical board reviewArbitrary and capriciousRemand
References
4
Case No. 96 Civ. 4126
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2003

Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Foundation for A Course in Miracles (FACIM) and Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) sued New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd. (NCCFE) and Endeavor Academy for copyright infringement of 'A Course in Miracles.' The central issue was whether the work entered the public domain due to extensive pre-publication distribution without copyright notice. The court found that hundreds of uncopyrighted copies were distributed without sufficient limitations on who received them or how they could be used. Consequently, the court concluded that the work was generally published before its official copyright registration, rendering the copyright invalid. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, dismissing the copyright.

Copyright LawPublic DomainPre-publication DistributionCopyright InfringementIntellectual PropertyReligious TextsSpiritual TeachingsManuscript DistributionLiterary WorkLicensing Agreement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flynn v. Local One Amalgamated Lithographers of America

Plaintiff James Flynn, a former member of Local One, Amalgamated Lithographers of America, sued Local One’s Sickness and Accident Fund for wrongful denial of retirement medical benefits. Flynn alleged the denial violated ERISA, constituted fraud, and that the Fund was estopped from denying coverage. The Fund denied any unlawful actions and both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment. Flynn's claims stemmed from a four-year break in covered employment, which made him ineligible under the Plan's eligibility rules, even after amendments designed to relax requirements for long-term employees. The court reviewed the Fund's decision under an 'arbitrary and capricious' standard due to the Plan conferring discretion on its trustees. Finding no evidence that the Fund's interpretation was unreasonable or that its actions were fraudulent, and noting that Flynn's common law claims were preempted by ERISA, the court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment.

ERISAEmployee BenefitsRetirement BenefitsSummary JudgmentBenefit PlanFiduciary DutyFraudEstoppelArbitrary and Capricious StandardPlan Interpretation
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 70 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