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. 2014-773 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2016

Laga v. Foremost Signature Ins. Co.

In this action, provider Adelaida M. Laga, as assignee of Jenny Jimenez, sought assigned first-party no-fault benefits from Foremost Signature Insurance Company. The Civil Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the plaintiff argued that the defendant failed to legally establish that the fees charged exceeded the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the Civil Court's order and denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, siding with the plaintiff's argument.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewInsurance claimMedical providerAssigneeCivil CourtAppellate TermDenial of benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koninklijke Philips Electronics v. Digital Works, Inc.

This case involves a breach of contract dispute between Koninklijke Philips Electronics N.V. (plaintiff) and Digital Works, Inc. (defendant) concerning a Compact Disc Patent License Agreement. Philips initiated the lawsuit in New York State Court, asserting breach of contractual obligations, which Digital Works subsequently removed to federal court. Digital Works also moved to dismiss the claims based on lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court upheld the validity and enforceability of the Agreement's forum selection clause, which mandated jurisdiction in New York and included a waiver of objection to jurisdiction and venue by Digital Works. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiff's motion to remand the action back to the New York State Supreme Court, Westchester County, was granted. However, Philips' request for attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the removal was denied, as the court found Digital Works' removal was not frivolous.

Breach of ContractPatent LicensingForum Selection ClausePersonal Jurisdiction WaiverRemoval JurisdictionContract EnforcementDiversity ActionChoice of ForumContractual WaiversCommercial Dispute
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskowitz v. Board of Elections

The petitioner, an orthodox observer of Jewish Sabbaths and religious holidays, sought an order to compel the Board of Elections of the City of New York to accept signatures for his independent nominating petition after the statutory deadline of September 21, 1966. He argued that religious observances prevented him and his campaign workers from collecting signatures for 8 days, requesting additional time. The court found this argument "specious," noting that 42 days were allotted, and the petitioner only obtained 99 signatures in the remaining 32 days. The petitioner's secondary argument, challenging the constitutionality of requiring 3,000 signatures for independent candidates versus 750 for party candidates, was also rejected, citing prior case law that upheld the distinction. Consequently, the court denied the application and dismissed the petition.

Election LawIndependent CandidateNominating PetitionsSignature RequirementsReligious ObservanceStatutory DeadlinesConstitutional ChallengeJudicial DiscretionCandidate EligibilityBoard of Elections
References
9
Case No. No. 09 Civ. 10155
Regular Panel Decision

Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. v. Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC

Plaintiffs, Software Freedom Conservancy, Inc. and Erik Andersen, initiated a copyright infringement action in 2009 against several electronics distributors, including Westinghouse Digital Electronics, LLC (WDE), for their use of the BusyBox software. In 2010, the court issued a default judgment and a permanent injunction against WDE. The current motion by plaintiffs seeks to hold Westinghouse Digital LLC (WD), a non-party, in contempt of this earlier injunction. The court determined that WD is a successor in interest to WDE under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65(d) due to substantial continuity of identity, and is therefore bound by the injunction. WD's defenses, including a prior FCC order and fair use, were rejected by the court. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to hold WD in contempt, deferring the decision on specific damages and attorneys' fees pending further submissions from the parties.

Copyright InfringementContempt of CourtInjunctionSuccessor LiabilityRule 65(d)Fair Use DoctrineBusyBox SoftwareOpen SourceDefault JudgmentFCC Order
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Advanced Digital Information Corp.

Plaintiff Lucinda Allen filed suit against her former employer, Advanced Digital Information Corporation (ADIC), alleging sex-based hostile work environment, unequal pay under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), gender-based discrimination under Title VII and NYHRL, and retaliatory termination. ADIC moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted ADIC's motion regarding Allen's hostile work environment and EPA claims, finding the former lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness and the latter had been abandoned. However, the court denied summary judgment on Allen's sex discrimination and retaliation claims, concluding that material questions of fact remained regarding ADIC's discriminatory intent and the causal link between Allen's protected activities and her termination. Consequently, the sex discrimination and retaliation claims will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActNew York State Human Rights LawWorkplace HarassmentGender Discrimination
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Directors of Rough Riders Landing Homeowners Ass'n v. Signature Group, LLC

Plaintiffs, an association and condominium boards in Montauk, New York, sued Signature Group, LLC and Selective Insurance Company of America to recover overpaid premiums on a Standard Flood Insurance Policy. The action was originally filed in state court and subsequently removed to federal court by the defendants. Plaintiffs moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing a lack of federal jurisdiction. The District Court, however, denied the motion, finding that federal question jurisdiction exists because the claims for refund of SFIP premiums implicate significant federal issues and federal funds, requiring uniform interpretation of the National Flood Insurance Program's manual.

Flood insuranceNational Flood Insurance ProgramNFIPStandard Flood Insurance PolicySFIPWrite-Your-Own ProgramWYOPFEMAFederal Emergency Management AgencyInsurance premiums
References
11
Case No. ADJ9921643
Regular
Jul 09, 2019

Katherine Turner vs. CITY OF CULVER CITY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a decision that deemed lien claims invalid due to electronic signatures on declarations. The Board found that electronic signatures, specifically the "S signature" format used in electronic filings, are legally sufficient under the Uniform Electronic Transactions Act. Consequently, the prior decision invalidating the liens based on the lack of a "wet" signature was rescinded, and the case was returned for further proceedings. The Board clarified that electronic signatures satisfy the requirements of Labor Code section 4903.8(d) declarations.

Labor Code section 4903.8(d)electronic signaturewet signaturepenalty of perjurylien claimantWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and Order Granting Petition for Reconsiderationfindings of fact and ordersadministrative law judgeUniform Electronic Transactions Act (UETA)
References
14
Case No. ADJ7251479
Regular
Jun 02, 2015

ROBERT NORTON vs. NEO DIGITAL, A DIVISION OF 20TH CENTURY FOX/FOX ENTERTAINMENT GROUP

This case concerns defendant Neo Digital's petition for reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) decision denying a credit for alleged permanent disability overpayment. The WCJ previously found defendant was not entitled to a credit of $7,350.86 against benefits and liens. The WCAB denied reconsideration, agreeing that allowing such a credit against future medical treatment would disrupt the applicant's ability to receive necessary care. The Board emphasized that credit allowance is discretionary and equitable principles, including protecting the applicant from prejudice, guide such decisions.

Petition for ReconsiderationPermanent Disability OverpaymentAgreed Medical ExaminerStipulated AwardCredit for OverpaymentLabor Code § 4909Discretionary AuthorityEquitable PrinciplesDisruptive BenefitsPrejudice to Employee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuchsberg v. Lomenzo

This case concerns cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment related to an independent nominating petition for Jacob D. Fuchsberg, a candidate for Chief Judge. The petitioner sought to validate his petition after the Secretary of State initially declared it void due to an insufficient number of valid signatures. The lower court found 20,170 valid signatures, exceeding the 20,000 required, and thus validated the petition. However, the appellate court performed its own physical count, determining only 19,714 valid signatures remained after subtracting invalid ones. The court also upheld the invalidation of signatures from individuals who voted in a primary election, irrespective of their specific vote for a candidate. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's judgment and dismissed the petition due to the insufficient number of valid signatures.

Election LawNominating PetitionSignaturesVoter DisqualificationPrimary ElectionAppellate ReviewReversalJudicial RecountCandidate EligibilitySecretary of State
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 103 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