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

B. C. Manufacturing Co. v. Reiff

The case concerns an injunction sought by B. C. Manufacturing Co. Inc., a nonunion dress contractor, against Local 143 of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and its manager, Louis Reiff, to stop picketing of its Mount Vernon, N.Y., factory. The picketing began after a general strike in March 1958, initially seeking a union agreement and later urging employees to join the union. The court found evidence of abusive and disorderly conduct during the picketing, including massing, blocking ingress/egress, pushing, and verbal abuse. However, the court denied a general injunction against all peaceful picketing, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to federal preemption under the Taft-Hartley Act, as the plaintiff's interstate commerce activities fall under NLRB's exclusive purview. Instead, a limited injunction was granted, restricting the number of pickets, prohibiting interference with employees, and forbidding abusive language.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionTaft-Hartley ActNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Interstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticeUnionizationStranger PicketingCoercion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregory B. v. Gregory F.

This consolidated appeal addresses whether incarcerated parents "permanently neglected" their children under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a), thus justifying the termination of parental rights. In Matter of Gregory B., the father, incarcerated since 1980, proposed long-term foster care for his children until his release, which was rejected. Similarly, in Matter of Willie John B. and Matter of Delores B., the father, incarcerated since 1979, also offered indefinite foster care after relatives were found unwilling or unable to provide care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights in all cases, holding that while 1983 statutory reforms acknowledged special circumstances for incarcerated parents, they did not excuse them from planning for their child's future. The Court concluded that indefinite foster care is not a "viable plan" as it is inconsistent with the purpose of foster care and deprives children of the essential permanency required for proper growth and development.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationIncarcerated ParentSocial Services LawFoster CareAdoptionChild WelfareFamily LawCourt of AppealsJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2018

Matter of Bobbi B. (Bobby B.)

This case concerns an appeal by Bobby B., the father, against an order from the Family Court, Bronx County. The Family Court found the father neglected his child, Bobbi B., by engaging in domestic violence in her presence. The court's finding was based on the testimony of a shelter worker who witnessed the father assaulting the mother while she held their one-month-old child. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that there was no basis to overturn the credibility determinations. The court reiterated that even a single instance of domestic violence can be sufficient for a finding of neglect and properly discredited the father's denial of a domestic violence history due to a prior assault conviction and an existing order of protection.

Child neglectDomestic violenceFamily CourtAppellate DivisionCredibility determinationOrder of protectionChild endangermentThird-degree assaultInfant protectionParental neglect
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01775 [226 AD3d 403]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2024

Matter of D.B. (Larry B.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Family Court's finding that the respondent father, Larry B., neglected his child, D.B. The neglect was based on the father's verbal abuse, harsh behavior, and failure to address the child's serious emotional and psychological needs, including minimizing suicidal ideation and impeding medical and mental health treatment after the child's psychiatric hospitalization. The court found that a preponderance of the evidence supported the neglect finding, corroborated by the father's own testimony and a Child Protective Specialist's report, and upheld the Family Court's credibility determinations.

Child NeglectParental AbuseEmotional TraumaSuicidal IdeationMental Health TreatmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewCredibility AssessmentCorroboration of StatementsParental Responsibility
References
9
Case No. 12 Civ. 3763(AJN)
Regular Panel Decision

R.B. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs R.B. and M.L.B., parents of D.B., brought an action against the New York City Department of Education (DOE) seeking judicial review of an administrative decision. The State Review Officer (SRO) had previously affirmed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision, which found D.B.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) sufficient under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for D.B.'s enrollment in a private school, challenging the IEP's procedural and substantive adequacy and the appropriateness of the DOE's assigned school placement. The District Court granted the Defendant's motion for summary judgment and denied the Plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate and the assigned school appropriate, thereby denying tuition reimbursement.

Education LawIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerDue Process ComplaintTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentProcedural Adequacy
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Guardianship of B.

B, a 26-year-old woman with Down's syndrome and mild to moderate retardation, sought a tubal ligation. Her mother and guardian, D.P., petitioned the Supreme Court, Tompkins County, to modify a 1993 order that had prohibited such sterilization without further court review. The court assessed B's capacity to provide informed consent, considering testimonies from her gynecologist, psychiatric social worker, mother, and an independent psychologist. While one expert initially questioned her capacity, B's own testimony demonstrated a clear understanding of the procedure and her reasons for wanting it. Applying the Nilsson standards for sterilization petitions, the court found that the procedure was in B's best interests. Consequently, the petition was granted, affirming B's capacity to consent and modifying the previous order to authorize the tubal ligation.

GuardianshipSterilizationInformed ConsentMental Hygiene LawIncapacityDevelopmental DisabilityDown SyndromeReproductive RightsMedical TreatmentBest Interests
References
14
Case No. Civ. 79-714
Regular Panel Decision

Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corp. v. Diamond Shamrock Corp.

This case involves several pending motions before Chief Judge Curtin concerning patent infringement disputes between E.I. du Pont de Nemours & Company and Hooker Chemicals & Plastics Corporation (plaintiffs) against Diamond Shamrock Corporation (defendant). The court addressed Du Pont's motion to vacate a prior order joining it as an involuntary plaintiff, which was denied. Diamond's motion to consolidate two related cases, Civ. 79-714 and Civ. 79-794, was granted in the interest of judicial economy. Additionally, Diamond's motion to file an amended counterclaim was partially granted, allowing the assertion of new claims for infringement of the Dotson '194 patent and unfair competition, including a new jury trial right for these specific issues. The court clarified that the jury trial right for previously asserted claims was waived.

Patent InfringementMotion PracticeCase ConsolidationAmended CounterclaimJury Trial WaiverPendent JurisdictionRule 19(a) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 42 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 13 Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 38(b) Federal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 2,050 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