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. 2023 NY Slip Op 23413
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

Gur Assoc. LLC v. Convenience on Eight Corp.

The New York Civil Court denied a motion by Convenience on Eight Corporation (tenant) to dismiss a commercial holdover proceeding initiated by Gur Associates LLC (landlord). The landlord sought eviction due to the premises' alleged illegal use for unlicensed cannabis sales by an undertenant, Bing Bong Candy Shop Inc. The tenant's motion, which also sought to vacate a default, cited improper service, defective notices, insufficient allegations of illegal use, and waiver by rent acceptance. The court found that the landlord adequately pleaded illegal use under RPAPL 715-a (4), rejecting the tenant's arguments regarding service, notice requirements, and the claim that rent acceptance constituted a waiver, citing strong public policy against illegal use.

Commercial LeaseHoldover ProceedingIllegal UseCannabis SalesUnlicensed BusinessEvictionPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissDefault Judgment
References
33
Case No. ADJ2854714 (MON 0360433)
Regular
Jun 24, 2011

DAVID FRENCH vs. WARNER BROTHERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the defendant's petition for reconsideration regarding a change of venue. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the prior order changing venue to Long Beach, and denied the applicant's request for a venue change. The WCAB found the applicant failed to demonstrate good cause for the change, as the primary reason cited was the convenience of his new attorney, not the applicant or witnesses. The Board also noted the defendant's objection regarding witness convenience and the employer's location, highlighting the improper burden of proof placed on the defendant by the judge.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalChange of VenueLabor CodeWCAB RulePre-trial orderInterlocutory orderGood CauseBurden of Proof
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boys Clubs of America v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.

This case concerns a motion to transfer venue filed by Defendant Goodyear Tire and Rubber Company against Plaintiff Boys Club of America. BCA sued Goodyear for alleged defects in a roof installed at its Texas service center, claiming breach of contract, warranty, and negligence. Goodyear sought to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the Northern District of Texas, arguing that the majority of operative facts, witnesses, and documents were located in Texas. The court, presided over by Judge Edelstein, examined factors such as the location of operative facts, witnesses, convenience of parties, and plaintiff's choice of forum. Ultimately, the motion was granted, with the court finding that the interests of justice and convenience strongly favored a transfer to the Northern District of Texas.

Motion to Transfer Venue28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)Convenience of PartiesConvenience of WitnessesInterest of JusticePlaintiff's Choice of ForumOperative FactsBreach of ContractBreach of WarrantyNegligence
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indian Harbor Insurance v. Factory Mutual Insurance

The Trustees of the University of Pennsylvania ("Penn") and Indian Harbor Insurance Company ("Indian Harbor") sued Factory Mutual Insurance Company ("FM") seeking a declaratory judgment regarding insurance coverage for damages Penn sustained at its veterinary hospital due to a Salmonella outbreak. FM moved to transfer the venue from the Southern District of New York to the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, citing convenience of parties and witnesses and the interests of justice. The Court considered factors such as the locus of operative facts being in Pennsylvania, the convenience of key witnesses like FM's adjuster, and the Eastern District of Pennsylvania's familiarity with the governing law and lighter docket. The Court ultimately granted FM's motion, finding that the balance of factors strongly favored transferring the case.

Venue TransferDeclaratory JudgmentInsurance Coverage DisputeProperty LossSalmonella OutbreakVeterinary HospitalForum Selection ClauseChoice of LawJudicial EconomyInter-district Transfer
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2005

CARTIER, DIV. OF RICHEMONT v. Bertone Group

In a trademark infringement case, defendants moved to disqualify plaintiffs' litigation counsel, Tal Benschar, Esq., from serving as a 30(b)(6) deposition witness, citing New York Disciplinary Rule 5-102 which addresses the advocate-witness rule. The Court denied the defendants' motion, allowing Mr. Benschar to testify. The Court acknowledged the potential for confusion and conflicting loyalties when a lawyer acts as both a witness and an advocate, but found these dangers less likely in the pre-trial context. It also considered that Mr. Benschar was in the best position to provide the requested information, having supervised the investigation. However, the Court deferred its ruling on whether Mr. Benschar’s testimony would disqualify him from subsequently serving as trial counsel, noting that another attorney would be primary trial counsel.

Trademark InfringementDiscoveryFed.R.Civ.P. 30(b)(6)Attorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleEthical RulesDeposition TestimonyPre-Trial ProcedureNew York LawCounsel Representation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 09, 2002

In Re the United States for Material Witness Warrant

This Opinion and Order addresses the Court's authority to investigate potential government misrepresentations in the case of Abdallah Higazy, a prospective grand jury witness. Higazy was detained as a material witness after a transceiver was allegedly found in his hotel room and he purportedly confessed during a polygraph test, both of which later proved false. The Court determined it lacked criminal contempt jurisdiction over the FBI agent's conduct but affirmed its inherent supervisory power to inquire into and publicize the truth of such misconduct. The Court ordered the Government to complete its internal investigation and report findings by October 31, 2002, while directing the unsealing of most case documents, subject to government-proposed redactions by August 9, 2002, to protect grand jury secrecy. The government's internal investigation reports were ordered to remain sealed.

Material WitnessGrand Jury InvestigationFBI MisconductFalse ConfessionJudicial Supervisory PowerCriminal ContemptUnsealing DocumentsGovernment MisrepresentationsPolygraph TestSeptember 11 Investigation
References
16
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. ADJ7035131
Regular
Jan 03, 2011

IGNACIO VASQUEZ vs. VERTEX COATINGS, INC., TRUCK INSURANCE EXCHANGE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the employer's petition for reconsideration of an order denying a change of venue. However, the Board granted removal and changed venue to San Bernardino based on the employer demonstrating good cause for witness convenience under Labor Code § 5501.6(b). The Board found the employer complied with statutory requirements by identifying witnesses and the substance of their testimony, and the applicant failed to properly object to the venue change. Therefore, the case will now proceed in the San Bernardino District Office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardVertex CoatingsInc.Ignacio VasquezPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code section 5501.6(b)WCJSan Bernardino District Office
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. Central Hudson Gas & Electric Corp.

The court granted the defendants' motion to change venue from Bronx County. Defendants successfully demonstrated that retaining the action in Bronx County would inconvenience nonparty material witnesses. Affidavits were submitted from a witness at the accident scene, a police officer, an EMS worker, and the retired Medical Examiner of Ulster County, all attesting to the inconvenience of traveling to Bronx County. The police officer and EMS worker further highlighted the disruption to their public service duties. The court found their testimony material, with the officer's testimony bearing on liability and the paramedic's on injuries, and appropriately considered their convenience.

Change of VenueForum Non ConveniensMaterial WitnessesWitness InconvenienceAffidavitsPolice TestimonyEMS TestimonyMedical Examiner ReportLiabilityInjuries
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dickerson v. Novartis Corp.

Plaintiff Elyse Dickerson sued Alcon Laboratories, Inc., and Novartis Corporation, alleging gender-based pay discrimination, retaliation, unlawful termination, FMLA violations, and defamation. Defendants moved to sever Ms. Dickerson's individual claims from class and collective action claims and transfer them to the Northern District of Texas. The court granted the motion, citing that Ms. Dickerson's claims were already functionally separate, involved distinct facts and witnesses, and that the operative facts occurred primarily in Texas. The decision emphasizes judicial economy, convenience of witnesses, and the locus of operative facts as key reasons for severance and transfer, despite the plaintiff's initial choice of forum.

Gender discriminationRetaliationUnlawful terminationFMLADefamationVenue transferSeverance of claimsJudicial economyConvenience of witnessesLocus of operative facts
References
63
Showing 1-10 of 904 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