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
Dec 24, 1990

Gonfiantini v. Zino

The plaintiff, an employee of A&A Awning Corp., was injured after falling from a ladder without rubber shoes while installing an awning. The plaintiff sued New York Builders Supply Co., alleging a defective ladder and a violation of Labor Law § 240. During the trial, evidence emerged that the ladder was also unsecured. The trial court denied the plaintiff's motion to amend pleadings to conform to this new evidence and for a directed verdict, ruling only on the defective ladder theory. The Supreme Court reversed the judgment, finding that the trial court erred in denying the motion to conform pleadings to the evidence, as the unsecured ladder theory was presented during cross-examination without objection, causing minimal prejudice to the defendants. The case was remanded for a new trial on liability only, as the jury was improperly precluded from considering a viable theory of liability under Labor Law § 240.

Workers' CompensationLadder AccidentPremises LiabilityNegligencePleading AmendmentDirected VerdictTrial ProcedureAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryConstruction Accident
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kleehammer v. Monroe County

This case involves an employment sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Kleehammer against Monroe County and Sheriff O'Flynn. Kleehammer alleges hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The hostile environment claim stemmed from a single incident involving a female visitor and a male inmate, and subsequent lewd comments by co-workers. Kleehammer also claimed retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment and for alleged denial of "Z time" leave. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the hostile environment and Equal Protection/Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient pleading and lack of employer liability for co-worker conduct, but allowed the retaliation claims (Third and Fourth causes of action) to proceed. The Court cautioned Plaintiff's counsel regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for good faith pleading.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissJudgment on the PleadingsTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSection 1983 ClaimPleading StandardsBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. St. Barnabas Nursing Home

Plaintiff Felicia Pickett Johnson, pro se, brought an action against her former employer, St. Barnabas Nursing Home, and co-worker, Ronald Granger, under Title VII, the ADA, and New York Human Rights Laws. Claims against Granger were dismissed without prejudice. St. Barnabas moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Johnson's federal claims were time-barred because she failed to file within 90 days of receiving her EEOC right-to-sue letter. The court determined that Johnson's filing on February 7, 2008, was beyond the 90-day period, whether calculated from the presumptive receipt date of November 3, 2007, or her claimed receipt date of November 14, 2007 (or even November 8, 2008, based on a fax confirmation). Finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling, the court dismissed the federal claims as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Consequently, St. Barnabas's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Title VIIADAEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingRight-to-Sue LetterJudgment on the PleadingsSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rolon v. Henneman

Plaintiff Dennis Rolon, a police officer, sued Sergeant Ari Moskowitz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations for false disciplinary charges and testimony that led to his suspension. The court considered Moskowitz's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that Rolon failed to state a claim for false testimony because Moskowitz's testimony was struck from the record and disbelieved. Additionally, Rolon's claims for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence failed because his Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, as he faced administrative rather than criminal charges, and suffered no deprivation of liberty, only property loss. Consequently, Moskowitz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Due processSection 1983False disciplinary chargesAbsolute immunityQualified immunityMalicious prosecutionFabrication of evidenceFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Perillo

The plaintiff, an employee of a subcontractor, sustained injuries at a construction site due to a pothole. In a personal injury action against the site owner and general contractor, the plaintiff's pleadings did not explicitly reference Labor Law sections 200 and 241(6), leading to the defendants arguing surprise at trial when these statutory theories were introduced. The trial court granted a directed verdict for the defendants. The appellate court reversed, finding that the defendants had sufficient prior information from depositions and bills of particulars to anticipate the Labor Law claims. The court emphasized the nondelegable duty under Labor Law § 241(6) and the requirements for notice under Labor Law § 200, remanding the case for a new trial and allowing the plaintiff to amend the pleadings to conform to the proof.

Personal injuryconstruction accidentLabor Lawstatutory dutycommon-law negligencepleading amendmentnondelegable dutynotice requirementdirected verdictappellate review
References
3
Case No. 91 Civ. 6818(RPP)
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2001

Tho Dinh Tran v. DINH TROUNG TRAN

Plaintiff Tho Dinh Tran initiated an action against Defendants Dinh Truong Tran alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Following a bench trial, the court found the defendants liable for both claims, awarding damages and reasonable attorney's fees. The current opinion addresses post-trial motions, specifically Plaintiff's motion to amend pleadings and for attorney's fees, and Defendants' motion for reconsideration. The court granted Plaintiff's motion to amend the pleadings to conform with trial evidence regarding hours worked, finding implied consent from the defendants. Defendants' motion for reconsideration was denied, as it merely reargued previously decided issues. Finally, Plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was granted, with the court adjusting the requested hourly rates for the attorneys involved and awarding a total of $94,536.50.

Fair Labor Standards ActRICOAttorney FeesPost-Trial MotionsPleading AmendmentReconsiderationWage DisputeEmployment LitigationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDamages
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sacay v. Research Foundation of the City University of New York

Plaintiff Melanie Sacay brought an action against her employers and supervisors, including the Research Foundation of the City University of New York, alleging retaliation under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sacay claimed she was effectively terminated for supporting her mother's discrimination claims against the same defendants. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because her alleged protected activity, a memorandum supporting her mother, occurred after the adverse employment action (her transfer). However, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend her complaint to potentially show earlier protected activity, with the exception of federal claims against individual defendants Morris and Pérsico.

RetaliationAmerican with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawSection 1983Judgment on the PleadingsAdverse Employment ActionCausal LinkProtected Activity
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers v. Secretary of Department of Treasury

The plaintiff, George Myers, an IRS employee, filed several EEO claims for age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. After being reassignment, he filed a federal complaint alleging discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Executive Law. The defendant, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, moved for judgment on the pleadings due to Myers's failure to properly serve the summons and complaint as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i) and 4(m). While acknowledging attorney neglect, the Court, exercising its discretion and considering the expiration of the statute of limitations and the government's prior notice of the claims, denied the motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff an additional 30 days to effect proper service.

Age DiscriminationHarassmentRetaliationService of ProcessFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m)Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsAttorney NeglectJudicial Discretion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franklin v. Apfel

Roger R. Franklin appealed the denial of social security disability benefits by Commissioner Kenneth S. Apfel. Franklin claimed disability since January 1993 due to back problems, depression, anxiety, and stomach ulcers. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. District Judge Curtin reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the ALJ erred by downplaying non-exertional impairments and by relying on unreliable vocational expert testimony regarding job availability. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, the defendant's denied, and the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the decision.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ DecisionRemandResidual Functional CapacityNon-Exertional ImpairmentsVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceMedical-Vocational GuidelinesMental Impairment
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 763 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