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

Xue Ming Wang v. Abumi Sushi Inc.

Plaintiff Xue Ming Wang sued Abumi Sushi Inc. and Qing Zhong Li for Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), New York Labor Law (NYLL), and New York General Business Law § 349 violations, stemming from his employment as a delivery worker. The core legal dispute centered on whether the defendants, who acquired the restaurant's assets in June 2015, were liable for violations predating the sale under successor liability doctrines. The Court considered both traditional common-law and federal common-law 'substantial continuity' tests. It concluded that the traditional test did not apply due to lack of ownership continuity, and under the 'substantial continuity' test, the plaintiff failed to prove the defendants had notice of the alleged pre-sale violations. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion, and dismissed claims related to pre-June 2, 2015 conduct against the appearing defendants.

Successorship LiabilityFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawGeneral Business Law § 349Wage and Hour ViolationsAsset SaleConstructive NoticeSummary JudgmentEmployment LawLabor Dispute
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. New York State

The plaintiff, pro se, filed a Second Amended Complaint alleging numerous constitutional rights violations by state and municipal defendants, including false arrests, excessive force, and retaliation, spanning 12 years. The claims included violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the 14th Amendment, and New York State common law. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to disqualify the Attorney General. The court denied plaintiff's cross-motion. It granted defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claim, claims asserted on behalf of plaintiff's son, and the conspiracy claim, finding the latter barred by the intra-corporate conspiracy doctrine. However, the court denied dismissal requests related to the statute of limitations (applying the continuing violation doctrine to § 1983 claims), Eleventh Amendment immunity (allowing individual capacity claims), and the First Amendment retaliation claim, finding the allegations sufficient to proceed.

Civil RightsDue ProcessFalse ArrestExcessive ForceRetaliationFirst Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983Qualified ImmunityStatute of LimitationsEleventh Amendment
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ogle v. State

This case involves a claimant who filed for medical malpractice and negligence against the State of New York, alleging that delayed treatment for tuberculosis during his incarceration led to paraplegia. The Court of Claims initially denied the State's motion to dismiss, applying the continuous treatment doctrine. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, asserting that the doctrine's application requires a relevant relationship between treating physicians or a continuous relationship between the claimant and initial physicians, rather than merely all providers being state employees. The court found questions of fact regarding the relevant relationship between the medical facilities involved (Ogdensburg, Samaritan, Upstate) that need to be determined by the Court of Claims. Therefore, the order of the Court of Claims was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings to determine the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine.

medical malpracticenegligencecontinuous treatment doctrinetuberculosisspinal cord injuryparaplegiacorrectional facility inmatestatute of limitationsquestions of factappellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2014

In re Haemmerle

The debtor, Thomas Haemmerle, moved to hold Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. in civil contempt for violating his Chapter 7 bankruptcy discharge injunction. Haemmerle's personal liability on a mortgage loan was discharged in 2006, despite Wells Fargo not being initially scheduled as a creditor. After the loan defaulted in 2011, Wells Fargo pursued collection efforts. Despite being notified of the discharge in 2013, Wells Fargo continued to make numerous phone calls and send letters asserting Haemmerle's personal liability. The court ruled that Haemmerle's personal liability was discharged by operation of law and that Wells Fargo knowingly and willfully violated the discharge injunction, awarding attorneys' fees and $69,500 in punitive damages.

Bankruptcy LawDischarge InjunctionCivil ContemptCreditor NotificationNo-Asset BankruptcyPersonal LiabilityIn Rem RightsPunitive DamagesAttorneys' FeesEmotional Distress Claims
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otubu v. Wakefern Food Corp.

Lawrence Otubu, a black male, filed an employment discrimination action against Wakefern Food Corporation alleging violations of Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. Otubu claimed discriminatory hiring, failure to promote, and wrongful termination based on race during his employment from January to September 1985. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's § 1981 claim. Citing the Supreme Court's decision in Patterson v. McLean Credit Union, the court determined that claims for discriminatory termination and harassment are precluded under § 1981. Furthermore, the court found that Otubu's remaining § 1981 claims were time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations, rejecting the application of continuing violations and equitable tolling doctrines. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the § 1981 claims was granted.

Employment DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 196442 U.S.C. Section 1981Statute of LimitationsEquitable TollingContinuing Violations DoctrineRacial DiscriminationFailure to PromoteWrongful TerminationFederal Civil Procedure
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heins v. Potter

Plaintiff Clark Heins, a former employee of the United States Postal Service, filed discrimination claims against John E. Potter, Postmaster, for failure to hire, failure to accommodate, and retaliation under Title VII and the Rehabilitation Act. Heins alleged violations of his retreat rights related to job vacancies at the Monticello Post Office, claiming the Postal Service failed to notify him and allowed less senior employees to bid. Defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing Heins failed to exhaust administrative remedies by not contacting an EEO counselor within the 45-day period. The court denied the defendant's motion, finding that a jury must determine when Heins's claim accrued, specifically whether he had sufficient knowledge of his injury and its cause on April 26, 1995, or if it was later on June 14, 1995. The court also rejected the applicability of the continuing violation doctrine.

DiscriminationFailure to HireFailure to AccommodateRetaliationTitle VIIRehabilitation ActEEO CounselingAdministrative ExhaustionSummary JudgmentAccrual
References
35
Case No. 94 Civ. 5718, 96 Civ. 5350
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 1997

Yaba v. Roosevelt

Minerva Yaba filed two civil rights actions against her employer, Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft, and several individuals, alleging discrimination based on sex, race, and disability, along with retaliation. The first complaint cited Title VII and ADA violations, including a hostile work environment and sexual assault by senior partner Haven C. Roosevelt. The second action focused on racial harassment and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The court granted Roosevelt's motion to dismiss claims against him in the second action, citing res judicata due to previous litigation or the ability to have raised those claims earlier. However, the court denied the remaining defendants' motion to dismiss, finding sufficient allegations for disparate treatment, ADA accommodation, hostile work environment, and retaliation claims, and determining that the "continuing violation" doctrine made many claims timely.

Employment DiscriminationRacial HarassmentSexual HarassmentDisability DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Section 1981Res JudicataMotion to Dismiss
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benson v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems

Plaintiff Selina Benson filed a complaint against North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health Systems and individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on race, gender, disability, sexual orientation, and marital status, along with retaliation and breach of implied contract, under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss various claims. The court dismissed most NYSHRL claims (except retaliatory discharge) due to the election of remedies doctrine, and similarly dismissed most §§ 1981, 1985, and 1986 claims against North Shore due to preclusion. Additionally, Title VII claims against individual defendants and those alleging sexual orientation discrimination were dismissed. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims as time-barred under the continuing violation doctrine and dismissed the implied breach of contract claim, while allowing the plaintiff to amend the complaint to add a collective bargaining agreement claim.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSexual Orientation DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationBreach of Contract
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shumsky v. Eisenstein

Plaintiffs David Shumsky and Marjorie Scheiber sued their attorney, Paul Eisenstein, for legal malpractice for failing to timely file a breach of contract action against a home inspector. The key issue was whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the three-year Statute of Limitations, CPLR 214(6), which had been amended in 1996. The Supreme Court initially applied the doctrine, but the Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. This Court, however, reversed the Appellate Division, concluding that the continuous representation doctrine was applicable because plaintiffs reasonably believed the attorney-client relationship was ongoing regarding the specific matter, thereby making their malpractice action timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineAttorney NegligenceProfessional ResponsibilityCPLR 214(6) AmendmentContract BreachAppellate ReviewTollingClient-Attorney Relationship
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 6,857 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