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

Burroughs v. Northern Telecom, Inc.

The District Court for the Eastern District of New York, in a Memorandum and Order authored by District Judge Weinstein, addressed a motion to consolidate 44 repetitive stress injury (RSI) cases, alleging conditions such as Carpal Tunnel Syndrome from computer use, before a single judge. The court granted the motion for consolidation, assigning the cases to Judge Denis R. Hurley to oversee. Simultaneously, a motion by Northern Telecom, Inc. to transfer the *Burroughs* action to the Southern District of New York was denied. The decision highlighted the importance of early consolidation and coordinated case management, drawing parallels with asbestos and DES litigations, to enhance discovery efficiency, reduce transaction costs, and ensure equitable resolution of complex mass tort cases.

Repetitive Strain InjuryRSI CasesConsolidation of ActionsMultidistrict LitigationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeJudicial EconomyMass Tort LitigationTransfer of VenueFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEastern District of New York
References
22
Case No. 87 Civ. 4277 (TPG), 87 Civ. 4572 (RWS), 87 Civ. 4279 (RWS), 87 Civ. 4307 (LBS), 87 Civ. 4457 (LLS)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1989

Drago v. Celotex Corp.

This case addresses defendant Celotex Corporation's motion to sever four of five consolidated asbestos-related cases for trial in the Southern District of New York. The five plaintiffs, Rudolph Perich, Gerald Drago, James Oefelein, Conrad Kessler, and Harold Paskett, claim personal injuries or wrongful death due to asbestos exposure from Celotex products. The court, presided over by Judge Sweet, denied the motion, upholding the consolidation under Rule 42(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The decision weighed the efficiency of consolidation against potential prejudice, finding common issues of law and fact despite variations in plaintiffs' work sites and medical conditions. The court highlighted the shared counsel and the relatively small number of consolidated claims as factors favoring joint trial.

Asbestos LitigationCivil ProcedureRule 42(a) FRCPConsolidation of ActionsSeverance of ActionsPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathProduct LiabilityFederal District CourtAsbestosis
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Laundries Corp. v. Craft

This case involves Consolidated Laundries Corp., the petitioner, and its former employee, Craft, the respondent. Consolidated sought to enforce a restrictive covenant agreement against Craft, which prohibited him from serving former customers or engaging in the laundry business within his former route for one year after termination. Both parties were subject to collective bargaining agreements with the Amalgamated Laundry Workers Joint Board and Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America. Consolidated initiated arbitration, which Craft challenged on jurisdictional grounds. The case was subsequently removed to federal court. The court examined whether it had jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act or 28 U.S.C. § 1337. The court concluded that Section 301 did not apply because the dispute concerned uniquely personal rights, an individual could not invoke Section 301, and a motion to stay arbitration was not a suit for contract violation under the act. Furthermore, jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1337 was denied as the claim did not directly arise under an act regulating commerce like the National Labor Relations Act. Consequently, the motions to remand the proceedings to the New York Supreme Court were granted due to lack of federal jurisdiction.

Labor LawArbitrationRestrictive CovenantEmployment ContractFederal JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementRemandDistrict Court
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Joint Eastern & Southern Districts Asbestos Litigation

This amended memorandum and order by District Judge Weinstein addresses motions to dismiss and to vacate consolidation in approximately 700 asbestos cases originating from both the Southern and Eastern Districts of New York. The court affirmed its subject matter jurisdiction over third-party contribution claims, applying 'ancillary' or 'supplemental' jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367. It also upheld the consolidation of cases, ruling that cases pending in the Southern District should be transferred to the Eastern District under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a) for efficiency and justice, effective nunc pro tunc. Finally, the decision emphasized the necessity of proper service of process for all parties, particularly regarding their due process right to participate in jury selection, especially in multi-phase trials.

Asbestos litigationMultidistrict litigationSupplemental jurisdictionAncillary jurisdictionCase consolidationVenue transferDue processService of processFederal Civil ProcedureThird-party practice
References
16
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00112 [168 AD3d 717]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2019

Moscati v. Consolidated Edison Co. of N.Y., Inc.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed a personal injury case involving Michael Moscati, an excavator operator injured on a Consolidated Edison work site. Moscati's excavator slid into a creek while removing timber, leading to claims of common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), citing various Industrial Code provisions. The Supreme Court initially granted Consolidated Edison's motion for summary judgment, dismissing these claims. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that Consolidated Edison failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment. Specifically, Con Ed did not demonstrate a lack of notice regarding dangerous premises conditions or an absence of authority to supervise the work.

Construction accidentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Industrial Code violationsExcavator accidentSummary judgmentPrima facie caseDangerous premises conditionSupervision and controlAppellate Division
References
30
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2015

Schwarz v. Consolidated Edison, Inc.

Plaintiff, an ex-police officer with a 2002 perjury conviction related to the Abner Louima case, was hired by Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. (ConEd) in November 2014 as a mechanic. He was terminated approximately two weeks later, with ConEd citing "potential disruption of business operations" and "damage to the Company’s reputation" due to his notoriety. Plaintiff sued ConEd, alleging unlawful employment discrimination based on his criminal conviction history under the New York State Human Rights Law and New York City Human Rights Law, incorporating Correction Law article 23-A. ConEd moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing it terminated him due to business disruption and reputational risk stemming from his notoriety, not the conviction itself. The court granted ConEd's motion to dismiss, ruling that article 23-A protects against discrimination based on actual convictions, not reputation or notoriety, and that vacated convictions are not legally cognizable "convictions" under the law.

Employment DiscriminationCriminal Conviction HistoryPerjury ConvictionWrongful TerminationHuman Rights LawCorrection Law Article 23-AReputational HarmNotorietyVacated ConvictionsMotion to Dismiss
References
24
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. ADJ8588344
En Banc
Oct 26, 2017

Jose Guillermina Rodriguez vs. Garden Plating Co., Intercare Holdings Insurance Services

The Appeals Board consolidated over 1,200 Petitions for Reconsideration from lien claimants regarding a filing deadline. The petitions were dismissed as moot because the challenged administrative action was reversed, and the issue of timeliness was returned to the trial level for case-by-case adjudication.

WCABEn Banc DecisionLien ClaimantsPetitions for ReconsiderationLabor Code 4903.05(c)DeclarationTimelinessMootnessConsolidation of CasesMaster Case
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 16,840 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