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

Edwards v. Jet Blue Airways Corp.

Glenn Edwards initiated a putative class action against Jet Blue Airways Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law, article 19, § 650 et seq., concerning overtime compensation. Edwards claimed that Jet Blue failed to pay him at 1.5 times his regular rate for hours worked beyond 40 that were exchanged with coworkers. Jet Blue sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting an exemption under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) § 213 (b) (3) for air carriers, which it argued was incorporated into New York's 12 NYCRR 142-2.2. The court acknowledged the applicability of the FLSA exemption to Edwards due to Jet Blue's status as an air carrier. However, the court ruled that 12 NYCRR 142-2.2 still mandates overtime pay at 1.5 times the basic minimum hourly rate for exempt employees, which in this context means their regular pay rate plus one half times the New York State minimum wage. Finding that Edwards' complaint sufficiently alleged inadequate overtime compensation under New York law based on this calculation, the court denied Jet Blue's motion to dismiss.

Class actionOvertime payLabor LawFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Railway Labor Act (RLA)Minimum wageAir carrier exemptionWage and hour disputeMotion to dismissNew York employment law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Belt Painting Corp. v. TIG Insurance

This case addresses whether an 'absolute pollution exclusion' in an insurance policy applies to indoor dissemination of paint or paint solvent fumes. Belt Painting Corp., the plaintiff, was sued by Joseph and Maria Cinquemani for injuries sustained from inhaling fumes during Belt's work. TIG Insurance Company, the defendant and Belt's insurer, denied coverage based on the pollution exclusion. The Supreme Court initially sided with TIG, but the Appellate Division reversed the decision. The Appellate Division held that the exclusion does not apply to cases where the 'environment,' as commonly understood, is unaffected by what could realistically be defined as 'pollution,' thus mandating TIG to defend and indemnify Belt.

Insurance LawPollution ExclusionAbsolute Pollution ExclusionContract InterpretationCommercial General Liability PolicyIndemnificationDeclaratory JudgmentIndoor Air ContaminationToxic FumesPaint Solvent
References
30
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2021

Edwards v. State Univ. Constr. Fund

Stephen Edwards was injured during renovations at SUNY Oneonta when he allegedly hit his head on a wooden beam supporting a scaffold and fell down stairs. Edwards and his wife commenced an action against the State University Construction Fund (owner), Fahs Construction Group, Inc. (general contractor), and Tim Duffek Contracting, Inc. (subcontractor), alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), common-law negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court denied motions to dismiss by SUCF and Fahs, partially granted Duffek's motion, awarded contractual indemnification to SUCF and Fahs from Ralo Construction, Inc. (Edwards's employer), and denied Ralo's motion to dismiss third-party complaints. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of summary judgment for SUCF and Fahs on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, citing triable issues of fact regarding a dangerous condition and notice. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim against Duffek. However, it reversed the premature award of contractual indemnification to SUCF and Fahs from Ralo due to unresolved questions of negligence, and granted Ralo's motion to dismiss the breach of contract claims.

Construction accidentScaffold injuryDangerous conditionPremises liabilityContractual indemnificationBreach of contractSummary judgmentLabor Law § 200 claimLabor Law § 241(6) claimCommon-law negligence
References
38
Case No. CA 14-01267
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2015

CARR, DANIEL v. MCHUGH PAINTING CO., INC.

Plaintiffs Daniel and Susan Carr initiated a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, sustained a back injury while installing a door from a scissor lift at a renovation site. The Supreme Court denied the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s, motion for summary judgment and partially granted plaintiffs' cross-motion under Labor Law § 240 (1), allowing an amendment for a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order. It granted McHugh Painting Co., Inc.'s motion in part, dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against it, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion in its entirety. The court determined that Daniel Carr's injury was not an elevation-related hazard covered by Labor Law § 240 (1) and that the proposed Industrial Code violation for Labor Law § 241 (6) lacked merit.

Labor LawConstruction SafetyPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewScissor Lift AccidentElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code ViolationGeneral Contractor Liability
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Republic of the Philippines v. Abaya

The Republic of the Philippines filed a lawsuit against Gavino Abaya, Juan Abaya, Susan Abaya, Diane Dunne, and Barbara Stone, alleging state-law claims including money had and received, unjust enrichment, and conversion. These claims stem from the distribution of proceeds from the sale of Claude Monet's "Le Bassin aux Nymphease," a painting allegedly stolen from the Republic by Imelda Marcos's social secretary, Vilma Bautista, and subsequently sold by the defendants. Jose Duran, representing a class of judgment creditors of Imelda Marcos and her family, sought to intervene in the case, asserting a claim to the painting's sale proceeds based on a judgment against Imelda Marcos. The court granted Class Plaintiffs' unopposed motion to intervene as of right under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2), finding their motion timely, their interest direct and legally protectable, their ability to protect that interest potentially impaired without intervention, and their interests not adequately represented by the existing parties due to conflicting claims over the assets.

Intervention of RightFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)(2)Stolen ArtworkMonet PaintingJudgment CreditorsImelda Marcos EstateAsset RecoveryUnjust EnrichmentConversion ClaimsEquitable Relief
References
20
Case No. 2014-1493 W CR
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 01, 2016

People v. Oliva (Edward)

Edward P. Oliva appealed convictions for driving while ability impaired and two counts of passing a red signal. The Appellate Term, Second Department, dismissed the appeal concerning passing a red signal as abandoned due to lack of raised issues. The judgment convicting Oliva of driving while ability impaired was affirmed. The court found sufficient evidence to support the conviction, noting that Oliva consumed alcohol, exhibited signs of impairment such as glassy eyes and slurred speech, fled an accident scene at high speed, and refused a breath test. Oliva's defense, attributing his condition to fatigue and shock, was deemed meritless by the court.

Driving While Ability Impaired (DWAI)Vehicle and Traffic Law ViolationsAppellate Review of ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceRefusal to Submit to Chemical TestConsciousness of GuiltLesser-Included OffensePolice ChaseOperating a Motor Vehicle Under InfluenceTraffic Accident
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2004

Ribeiro v. Dynamic Painting Corp.

Raymundo Ribeiro, an employee of Wells Diversified Services, Inc., sustained injuries in October 1998 while sandblasting on the Castleton-on-Hudson Bridge for a joint venture including Dynamic Painting Corporation and Romano Enterprises, Inc. Ribeiro and his spouse initiated legal action against these contractors, asserting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Plaintiffs sought summary judgment, while defendants moved for dismissal, arguing that Ribeiro was a 'special employee' of Dynamic, making the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions applicable. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' dismissal request. The Appellate Division affirmed both rulings, confirming the existence of a special employment relationship, thereby upholding the defendants' entitlement to summary judgment.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentConstruction AccidentScaffold AccidentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityJoint VentureSandblasting
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunne v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Michelle Marie Dunne sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). She alleged disability due to various conditions including essential tremors, bipolar disorder, and asthma, with an onset date of October 15, 2012. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found her severe impairments to be affective disorder, obesity, and essential tremors, but concluded she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with specific limitations. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ determined there were jobs in the national economy she could perform and thus found her not disabled. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error, specifically addressing Plaintiff's arguments regarding the weighing of treating physician opinions, the RFC assessment, and the evaluation of her tremors.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActDIBSSIEssential tremorsBipolar disorderPTSDMental healthResidual functional capacityTreating physician opinion
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2014

Carr v. McHugh Painting Co.

Daniel Carr, a carpenter employed by a subcontractor, suffered a back injury while installing a heavy door from a scissor lift at an elevated height during a renovation project, leading him and other plaintiffs to sue the general contractor, McHugh Painting Co., Inc., under Labor Law and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendant's summary judgment motion but granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and allowed amendment for an Industrial Code violation claim. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court dismissed the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against the defendant, ruling that Carr's injury was not caused by an elevation-related hazard falling within the scope of § 240 (1) and the alleged Industrial Code violation was factually inapplicable. However, the court affirmed the denial of the defendant's motion regarding the Labor Law § 200 claim and common-law negligence, concluding that the defendant did not prove the risk was inherent in the work and had exercised supervisory control over the work methods. Consequently, the case was partially affirmed and partially dismissed on specific claims.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjurySafe Place to WorkGeneral Contractor LiabilityIndustrial Code ViolationElevation-Related HazardCommon-Law Negligence
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 490 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