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

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CLARA C. v. William L.

The concurring opinion, penned by Judge Levine, addresses the unconstitutionality of Family Court Act § 516 as applied to Thomas L. C., arguing it denies the child equal protection under the law. While judicial restraint typically advises against reaching constitutional issues, the opinion asserts this rule is not absolute, especially when public interest and recurring issues necessitate prompt resolution. It challenges the State's interests previously upheld in Bacon v Bacon, citing subsequent legal developments and advancements in genetic testing, which have significantly reduced the "complex and difficult problems of proof" in paternity cases. The opinion concludes that the discriminatory treatment of nonmarital children under § 516, which bars them from seeking paternity adjudication and support based on a father's current means, lacks a substantial relationship to a legitimate State interest. Therefore, it advocates for reversing the order and remitting the case to Family Court, Kings County, with a declaration that Family Court Act § 516 is unconstitutional as applied.

Equal Protection ChallengeFamily Court Act Section 516Paternity ProceedingsNonmarital Children's RightsChild Support AgreementsConstitutional ScrutinyGenetic Testing EvidenceJudicial Precedent OverhaulState Interest DoctrineParental Support Modification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Covert v. Niagara County

Claimant, a public assistance recipient, suffered a work-related injury while assigned to Niagara County through a work experience program. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim and determined an average weekly wage based on public assistance benefits. After public assistance benefits were suspended, the claimant sought lost wage benefits. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a WCLJ decision, ruling that payments made under the work experience program constituted "wages" under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Niagara County and its third-party administrator appealed this decision. The appellate court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Board's decision was interlocutory and did not dispose of all substantive issues, thus precluding immediate appeal. The court noted that review could be sought if and when a final determination on wage replacement benefits is issued.

Wage DeterminationPublic Assistance BenefitsWork Experience ProgramInterlocutory AppealAppellate JurisdictionMedical Evidence SufficiencySchedule Loss of UseLost Wage ClaimWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewFinality of Decision
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leonardi v. Board of Fire Commissioners

Plaintiff Michael Leonardi brought an action against the Mastic Beach Fire Department and its Board of Fire Commissioners, alleging his termination as a volunteer fireman without a pre-termination hearing violated his constitutional rights. Leonardi, a member since 1963, was terminated in June 1983, just shy of twenty years of service, due to alleged incapacitation and attendance issues. He had previously initiated an Article 78 state court proceeding, which was denied without prejudice. The District Court found that Leonardi, as an exempt volunteer fireman, possessed a constitutionally protected property interest under New York Civil Service Law, and his termination without a prior hearing constituted a deprivation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of Leonardi on the issue of liability for his federal claims. However, the court limited the defendants' liability for damages to the period between Leonardi's termination on June 28, 1983, and the date of the state court's order on March 2, 1984, as the state court proceeding provided a constitutionally adequate hearing, thereby ending the period of constitutional deprivation.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentSummary JudgmentWrongful TerminationVolunteer FiremanProperty InterestProcedural Due ProcessArticle 78 ProceedingDamages LimitationState Law Protections
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, current and former correction officers, sued the City of New York alleging race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on employment discrimination claims for all plaintiffs under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, finding that assignment to a rotating 'wheel' or undesirable permanent posts did not constitute an adverse employment action in the discrimination context. Summary judgment was also granted against O'Brien's retaliation claims, as her protected activity postdated the alleged retaliatory actions, and against Quick's standalone sexual harassment claim, which was deemed not severe enough to alter employment conditions. However, the court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims for Adams, Castleberry, Monche, and Quick, finding issues of fact regarding whether reassignments were retaliatory. Summary judgment was also denied for hostile work environment claims (general and Monche's individual sexual harassment claim) due to triable issues of fact regarding pervasive derogatory comments, discriminatory bathroom policies, and Supervisor Olivo's conduct towards Monche. Finally, summary judgment was denied on the Monell claim under § 1983, as there were triable issues regarding the EEO's corroboration policy leading to deliberate indifference to constitutional violations.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionMunicipal LiabilitySection 1983Monell Claim
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. United Garment Workers

Plaintiffs sought an injunction to prevent defendants from issuing circulars to their customers, claiming irreparable business damage. Defendants argued they were not violating any law, citing the Sinsheimer v. United Garment Workers case, which held employees had the right to notify trade persons of controversies. The court noted that similar circulars were previously deemed not to constitute a threat or intimidation. While acknowledging the second circular might be more objectionable, the court denied the injunction pendente lite, stating it is not policy to grant such relief when the plaintiffs' right to it is doubtful and the main action can be tried soon. The motion was denied with costs.

InjunctionPendente LiteTrade DisputeCircularsFreedom of SpeechLabor RelationsMotion PracticeIrreparable HarmAppellate Division Precedent
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 2006

D.I.S., LLC v. Sagos

This case concerns an appeal by a mortgagee from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted the mortgagor's petition to direct the mortgagee to accept a specific sum in full satisfaction of the mortgage debt and issue a satisfaction of mortgage. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's order, ruling that the mortgagor's tender of payment of the entire mortgage principal plus interest, in response to the mortgagee's acceleration of debt, did not constitute a 'prepayment' within the meaning of the mortgage's prepayment clause. Consequently, the mortgagee was precluded from assessing a prepayment penalty as no such provision was specified in the mortgage. Additionally, the court declined to consider the mortgagee’s remaining contention regarding the acceleration clause because it was raised for the first time in her reply brief.

Mortgage LawPrepayment PenaltyMortgage Debt SatisfactionAcceleration of DebtRPAPL 1921Appellate ProcedureCivil ProcedureNassau County Supreme CourtContractual ProvisionsTender of Payment
References
7
Case No. ADJ7144166
Regular

PAULINA CORTEZ vs. KOOSHAREM CORP. dba SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN RISK COMPANY, C/O ESIS, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, finding it was not a final order. The WCAB granted removal on its own motion to issue a notice of intention to impose sanctions against the lien claimant and its representatives. This action stems from the lien claimant's failure to appear at a properly noticed conference, misrepresentations regarding notice, and violations of procedural rules, constituting bad-faith tactics. Sanctions of $1,000 are proposed jointly and severally against the lien claimant and its representatives for these violations.

Labor Code 5813Rule 10561Petition for ReconsiderationNotice of Intention to DismissRemovalSanctionsBad Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsLien ClaimantUnnecessary Delay
References
0
Case No. ADJ593283 (AHM 0117827) ADJ1747148 (AHM 0117828) ADJ196184 (AHM 0117826)
Regular
Aug 01, 2011

DEBORAH ARRIOLA-LARA vs. NORDSTROMS; Permissibly Self-Insured

The Appeals Board denied Nordstrom's Petition for Removal seeking to overturn an order allowing applicant's supplemental deposition at her attorney's office. The Board found the petition lacked merit. However, the Board sua sponte granted removal on the limited issue of sanctions against Nordstrom's counsel. This action stems from counsel's inclusion of numerous extraneous and previously filed documents in their 114-page petition, constituting a violation of procedural rules and potentially a frivolous tactic warranting sanctions.

Petition for RemovalSupplemental DepositionDue Process ViolationCode of Civil Procedure Section 2025.250Good CauseWCAB Rule 10842(c)Labor Code Section 5813Bad-Faith ActionsFrivolous TacticsUnnecessary Delay
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,309 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