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. 2019 NY Slip Op 29391
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2019

People v. DeRaffele (John)

John DeRaffele appealed five judgments of conviction for violating sections of the Code of the City of New Rochelle related to the nonconforming use of his home and unpermitted alterations. The Appellate Term reversed convictions under Code § 111-8 (docket Nos. 70063 and 70065) due to insufficient evidence regarding the timing of alterations (bathroom/kitchen) and the deck construction, dismissing those informations. Additionally, two convictions under Code § 331-11 (A) (docket Nos. 70064 and 70097) were reversed and dismissed in the interest of justice because they were multiplicitous to a third charge under the same section. The judgment convicting DeRaffele under City Court docket No. 70098 for nonconforming use was affirmed but the maximum fine of $2,500 was reduced to $500 as a matter of discretion.

MultiplicityDuplicityZoning OrdinancesNonconforming UseBuilding PermitsAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyFinesRecusal
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flagstar Bank v. State

Flagstar Bank, FSB, as a judgment creditor, sought damages from the State of New York, alleging negligence by the Queens County Clerk's Office. An error in docketing a federal judgment against Udit Meeto allowed him to transfer real property free of Flagstar's lien, leading to a significant financial loss. Flagstar contended the State was liable for the ministerial act of the County Clerk. However, the Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the State, a decision affirmed on appeal. The court held that the State did not owe a 'special duty' to Flagstar, and no private right of action against the State could be implied from CPLR statutes governing judgment docketing, as these statutes serve broader public benefits and provide other enforcement mechanisms for judgment creditors.

NegligenceCounty Clerk ErrorJudgment LienDocketingSpecial Duty DoctrineGovernmental ImmunityPrivate Right of ActionCPLR Article 52Real Property LawJudgment Enforcement
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Jesus v. National RR Passenger Corp.

This action, brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), involved a defendant's motion to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the District Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, was injured in New Jersey, received medical treatment there, and all witnesses reside in New Jersey. Despite the plaintiff's opposition, which cited the FELA's broad venue, forum choice, and docket conditions, the court found the plaintiff's choice of a non-resident forum diminished. The court concluded that New Jersey was a more convenient forum for all parties and witnesses, and that the proximity of the districts and relative docket conditions did not outweigh the lack of connection to New York. Consequently, the court granted the transfer motion, moving the case to the District of New Jersey.

Federal Employers' Liability ActFELAVenue TransferForum Non Conveniens28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)Choice of ForumConvenience of PartiesConvenience of WitnessesInterest of JusticeInterstate Transfer
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Sterling Die Casting Co., Inc.

This case involves an appeal by Local 365 United Auto Workers Welfare and Pension Fund (the Fund) against Sterling Die Casting Company regarding the avoidance of a judgment lien under 11 U.S.C. § 547(b)(l)(4). The central issue is whether New York State practice regarding the docketing of judgments discriminates against federal court judgments. The Fund argued that its lien was created on the date of judgment in federal court, while Sterling contended it was created upon docketing with the county clerk, which fell within the 90-day preference period before its Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. The District Court affirmed the Bankruptcy Judge's decision, holding that New York's C.P.L.R. 5018(b) does not discriminate and that a lien is established only upon filing a transcript with the county clerk, serving the practical need for centralized record-keeping.

Judgment LienBankruptcy Code Section 547(b)(l)(4)Federal vs. State JudgmentsNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules 5018(b)28 U.S.C. Section 1962Docketing JudgmentsProperty LienSupremacy ClauseRetroactive DocketingEastern District of New York
References
6
Case No. Docket No. 6
Regular Panel Decision

Chaluisan v. Simsmetal East LLC

Plaintiff Carlos Chaluisan initiated a putative class action against Simsmetal East LLC and Mark Santiago, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime compensation. Additionally, Chaluisan brought individual state law claims for breach of contract and unjust enrichment concerning unpaid vacation pay and a non-discretionary bonus. Defendants moved to dismiss the individual claims for lack of supplemental jurisdiction and the unjust enrichment claim on preemption grounds. The court dismissed the breach of contract and unjust enrichment claims against Mark Santiago based on a stipulation but denied the defendants' motion to dismiss otherwise, finding a common nucleus of operative fact for supplemental jurisdiction and reserving judgment on the FLSA preemption issue for later stages of litigation.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawUnjust EnrichmentBreach of ContractSupplemental JurisdictionMotion to DismissExempt EmployeeWage DisputeEmployment Law
References
31
Case No. docket # 19
Regular Panel Decision

Mullin v. Rochester Manpower, Inc.

The plaintiff, Mullin, brought claims against Rochester Manpower, Inc. and Manpower, Inc. under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Family & Medical Leave Act (FMLA), and the New York State Human Rights Law, alleging discrimination based on pregnancy and unlawful termination. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The District Court, presided over by Judge Siragusa, granted the motion in part, dismissing the FMLA claims because the plaintiff failed to explicitly request leave. However, the motion for summary judgment was denied regarding the Title VII and Pregnancy Discrimination Act claims, as the court found that the defendants' inconsistent and shifting reasons for termination could suggest a pretext for discrimination.

Pregnancy DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFamily Medical Leave ActTitle VIIHuman Rights LawSummary Judgment MotionPretextual ReasonsDiscrimination ClaimsMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWestern District of New York
References
21
Case No. Docket No. 4
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Larson

This criminal action involves several defendants, members of Local 17, charged with racketeering conspiracy and Hobbs Act extortion conspiracy. The charges stem from alleged acts of violence, threats, and property damage aimed at coercing construction firms in Western New York into collective bargaining agreements and hiring Local 17 members. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, arguing the union's objectives were legitimate. However, the Chief Judge set aside this recommendation, ruling that the alleged tactics fell outside the legal protection for legitimate union activities under both the Hobbs Act and New York extortion law, thus denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment.

RICOHobbs ActExtortionRacketeeringLabor UnionsCriminal ConspiracyFirst AmendmentDue ProcessCollective BargainingStrike Violence
References
54
Case No. Docket # 45
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Empire Vision Centers, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernestine Ward filed suit against Empire Vision Centers, Inc., alleging discrimination based on race, color, and age, and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. The United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson addressed several pretrial motions in the consolidated case. Ward's motion to amend the complaint was denied as moot, and her motions to unseal discovery documents were denied. While some aspects of her motions to compel discovery were granted, specifically regarding patient charts and appointment schedules, other discovery requests, including interrogatories to non-parties and subpoenas, were denied. Finally, Ward's request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice, and her motion to appear by telephone was granted in part.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAge Discrimination in Employment ActNew York Human Rights LawPretrial DiscoveryMotion to Amend ComplaintMotion to Compel DiscoveryMotion to Unseal DocumentsAppointment of CounselMagistrate Judge Decision
References
10
Case No. Docket No. 26
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2007

In Re DRDGOLD Ltd. Securities Litigation

This consolidated class action was brought against DRDGOLD Limited (DRD), its chairman Mark Wellesley-Wood, and its CEO-CFO Ian Louis Murray, by various individual plaintiffs. The plaintiffs, representing investors who purchased DRD securities between October 23, 2003, and February 24, 2005, alleged violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that defendants made material misrepresentations regarding the restructuring of DRD's North West Operations (NWO) in South Africa, engaged in false and misleading financial reporting, and that Wellesley-Wood conducted insider stock sales at artificially inflated prices. DRD moved to dismiss the complaint pursuant to Fed. Rules of Civ. P. 9(b) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted DRD's motion to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately allege scienter with sufficient particularity under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act, although it found the loss causation allegations to be sufficient to survive dismissal. Leave to replead was granted to the plaintiffs.

Securities FraudClass ActionExchange Act of 1934PSLRAScienterPleading StandardsMaterial MisrepresentationInsider TradingGold Mining CompanyFinancial Reporting
References
39
Case No. Docket No. 67
Regular Panel Decision

Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. v. Ideal World Direct

In this Memorandum and Order, District Judge William H. Pauley, III, addresses defendants Ideal World Direct, Marc Molinaro, and Matthew Ashworth's motion to dismiss the Second Amended Complaint or sever claims. Plaintiffs Warner Bros. Entertainment Inc. and Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation allege copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing all claims against Molinaro and Ashworth due to a lack of personal jurisdiction, but denied it regarding Ideal World Direct, finding sufficient grounds for jurisdiction and adequately pleaded claims for contributory copyright infringement and Lanham Act violations. Additionally, the court denied motions to dismiss for failure to comply with pleading requirements under Fed.R.Civ.P. 8 and 10(b), and the motion to sever claims was also denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActPersonal JurisdictionMotion to DismissContributory InfringementInternet WebsitesOnline PiracyFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDistrict CourtCyberlaw
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 42 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