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

Claim of Moysello v. David

The claimant, a taxicab driver for David’s Taxi and David Enterprises, was injured in a motor vehicle accident in January 2007. An investigation by the Workers’ Compensation Board determined that Charles David and David Enterprises were the uninsured "true owners" and employers. A workers’ compensation law judge found them to be employers and uninsured, a decision affirmed by the Board, which found they met the presumptive definition of employer under Workers’ Compensation Law § 2 (former [3]) and had proper jurisdiction. The appellate court affirmed the Board’s decision, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that proper notice of the hearing was received despite competing address claims.

Motor Vehicle AccidentTaxicab DriverEmployer DefinitionUninsured EmployerWorkers' Compensation LawNotice of HearingBoard ReviewAppellate DecisionSubstantial EvidenceCorporate Ownership
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. United States

Plaintiffs George A. Taylor and Sally Taylor brought an action against the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for personal injuries Mr. Taylor sustained on February 4, 1994. Mr. Taylor slipped on icy snow while entering the Cicero-Clay Post Office in Cicero, New York. The case was tried without a jury, commencing on November 16, 1998, in Syracuse, New York. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, claiming the defendant failed to maintain safe premises, but the defendant denied negligence and lack of notice. Applying New York state law, the court required proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous icy conditions. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk's dangerous condition prior to the incident, as no complaints were made before Taylor's slip. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCANegligenceSlip and FallIcy ConditionsPost OfficePremises LiabilityActual NoticeConstructive NoticeFederal Court
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. New York Hospital

Plaintiff, a registered nurse, filed an action under Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act against The New York Hospital, its President Dr. David Skinner, and Assistant Director of Nursing Mr. Jody Sklar, alleging unlawful employment termination due to an alcoholism relapse. The plaintiff objected to a protective order preventing Dr. Skinner's deposition, while defendants sought to dismiss claims against individual defendants. The court granted dismissal against Mr. Sklar but denied it for Dr. Skinner, finding that individuals responsible for discriminatory decisions can be liable under the Act, especially those in positions to accept federal funds. Consequently, the protective order against deposing Dr. Skinner was set aside.

Rehabilitation Actemployment discriminationdisability rightsalcoholismindividual liabilitycorporate responsibilityprotective orderdiscoverymotion to dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 2010

Morris v. David Lerner Associates

Dora Morris sued her former employer, David Lerner Associates (DLA), and its President, David Lerner, for employment discrimination. She alleged gender discrimination due to unequal pay and a hostile work environment, claiming she was paid less than male counterparts and subjected to inappropriate comments and actions by Lerner. Morris also alleged retaliatory termination after complaining about the pay disparity. Defendants moved to dismiss parts of the complaint, arguing failure to exhaust administrative remedies and failure to state a claim. The Court denied the defendants' motion, finding that Morris's hostile work environment and retaliatory termination claims were reasonably related to her EEOC charge and were adequately pled under legal standards.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationMotion to DismissEEOC ExhaustionPleading StandardTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawDisparate Treatment
References
56
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08300 [177 AD3d 1370]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2019

Warren v. E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc.

Plaintiffs, Gary E. Warren et al., commenced a negligence action against E.J. Militello Concrete, Inc., and Verizon New York, Inc., seeking damages for injuries sustained by Gary E. Warren on a sidewalk outside his employer, Verizon. The Supreme Court, Erie County, granted Verizon's motion for summary judgment, concluding that workers' compensation benefits were the exclusive remedy. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law, and thus the Supreme Court should not have ruled on the summary judgment motion at that stage. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings after a determination by the Workers' Compensation Board.

NegligenceWorkers' CompensationPrimary JurisdictionSummary JudgmentAppellate ProcedureRemittalScope of EmploymentSidewalk AccidentErie CountyFourth Department
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1994

United States v. Taylor

Matthew Taylor, a co-founder of United Brooklyn (UB), was convicted of attempted extortion and extortion under the Hobbs Act at two construction sites where Flintlock Construction Company was the principal contractor. Taylor moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence linked him directly to extorting "money for a Coordinator and employment for members of United Brooklyn" as charged in Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four. He also sought a new trial citing recanted testimony from a key witness, Andrew Weiss. The court denied both motions, concluding that the evidence, including Taylor's role as the de facto head of UB and his active involvement in its extortionate schemes, sufficiently supported the conviction under an aiding and abetting theory. The court found that the alleged recantation was not material and did not undermine the verdict, given the compelling evidence of Taylor's guilt in a "long and persistent scheme" of extortion.

Hobbs ActExtortionAttempted ExtortionConspiracyAiding and AbettingConstruction IndustryRacketeeringOrganized CrimeMotion for AcquittalMotion for New Trial
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David J.

This dissenting opinion argues against the Family Court's decision to return Candice, Christine, and David to their parents, Roslyn K. and Steven K., after the petitioner charged the parents with neglect. The parents previously fled the state with the children, violating a court order. The dissent cites medical neglect of the daughters, alleged physical abuse and extreme isolation of David by his stepfather, and the mother's refusal to send David to school. The dissenting judge concludes that the parents' non-compliance and bizarre behavior create an imminent risk to the children's well-being, advocating for continued foster care.

Child neglectParental non-complianceChild welfareFamily Court proceedingsChild abuse allegationsMedical care refusalEducational neglectDissenting opinionBest interests of childTemporary removal order
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 1996

Takayama v. Schaefer

The case addresses whether an escrow agent, whose agreement is silent on dispute resolution, must deposit funds into court to avoid liability for interest and costs. Plaintiff Rie Takayama sued defendant Helmut Schaefer and his attorney, David E. Weissman (escrow agent), for the return of a $12,000 down payment after her mortgage application failed. Weissman held the funds in an IOLA account, requesting proof of good faith efforts. The trial court found for Takayama, holding both Schaefer and Weissman liable for the down payment, interest, and costs. The Appellate Term affirmed Weissman's liability for interest and costs, suggesting he should have used an interpleader action. This court reversed, ruling that an attorney-escrow agent, by securing funds in an IOLA account and awaiting a court order, performs the functional equivalent of an interpleader, thus avoiding personal liability for interest and costs.

escrow agent liabilityattorney ethicsreal estate contractcontract disputemortgage contingencyIOLA accountinterpleader actionfiduciary dutyappellate reviewinterest and costs
References
20
Case No. 02 Civ. 4286, 02 Civ. 4297
Regular Panel Decision

Wallace v. Buttar

Petitioners David Jacaruso, Joseph Scotti, and Michael E. Wallace moved to vacate an arbitration award issued in favor of respondents Daljit S. Buttar and Par-amit Buttar. The Buttars cross-moved to confirm the award. The arbitration, conducted by the National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc. (NASD), found the petitioners liable for misrepresentation, unauthorized trading, and fraud, and also as 'Control Persons,' jointly and severally liable for compensatory and punitive damages. The District Court, applying standards of 'manifest disregard of the law' and 'manifest disregard of the facts,' found that the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law by imposing respondeat superior liability on the petitioners for actions of a broker and by finding fraud liability without evidence of intent. Furthermore, the court found the arbitrators manifestly disregarded the law and facts regarding control person liability. Consequently, the court granted the petitioners' motion to vacate the arbitration award and denied the respondents' cross-motion to confirm it.

arbitrationvacaturconfirmationsecurities fraudcontrol person liabilitymanifest disregard of lawmanifest disregard of factsNASD arbitrationpunitive damagesrespondeat superior
References
24
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02784 [194 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2021

David v. David

The infant plaintiff was injured in an automobile accident. The plaintiffs sought approval for a settlement, but Horizon Blue Cross Blue Shield of New Jersey, the administrator of the infant plaintiff's mother's self-funded employee benefit plan, asserted a subrogation lien for medical expenses. The Supreme Court denied the lien, citing New York's anti-subrogation statute, General Obligations Law § 5-335. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the self-funded plan was governed by ERISA, which preempts the state anti-subrogation statute. Consequently, the subrogation lien was deemed enforceable against the settlement proceeds.

ERISA PreemptionSubrogation LienSelf-Funded Employee BenefitsPersonal Injury SettlementAnti-Subrogation StatuteAppellate DivisionInfant CompromiseAutomobile AccidentReimbursement ClaimsNew York Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,922 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