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. 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. 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. 533459
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Hopeck

Claimant Edward Hopeck sustained a left knee injury in 1984, leading to a schedule loss of use award which was later increased in 2000. Following knee replacement surgery in 2006, the Workers' Compensation Law Judge marked the case for no further action pending new medical evidence. In 2020, after additional knee surgeries in 2017 and 2019, claimant sought further awards. However, both the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that the reopening of the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 123, citing the lapse of time since the injury and last payment. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the claimant's decade-long inaction in pursuing awards constituted an abandonment of the claim, thus making the time limitations of § 123 applicable.

Workers' Compensation Law § 123Reopening of ClaimStatute of LimitationsSchedule Loss of Use AwardKnee InjuryAppellate ReviewClaim AbandonmentMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singer v. Bell

Plaintiffs Steven and Dulce Singer, New York residents, sued multiple New Jersey residents, including Sheldon Liebowitz and his law firm, Liebowitz, Liebowitz & Clark, Esqs. The action stemmed from a New Jersey matrimonial litigation where Steven Singer failed to pay child support to his ex-wife, Emily Singer Bell. An arrest warrant was issued for Singer for $48,031 in arrearages. Plaintiffs alleged that other defendants lured Steven Singer to New Jersey, where he was arrested and detained, violating his constitutional rights (Fourth, Fifth, Fourteenth Amendments) and civil rights (42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985). The specific defendants (Liebowitz and his firm) moved to dismiss the action against them, arguing lack of personal jurisdiction in New York as they do no business there and did not participate in the alleged luring scheme. Plaintiffs claimed jurisdiction under New York Civ.Prac.Law § 302(a)(2) or (3), asserting the defendants conspired with others who committed acts in New York. The court found that plaintiffs failed to make a prima facie showing of conspiracy and presented only speculation and conjecture without evidentiary facts. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss the action against Liebowitz and his firm for lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionMotion to DismissConspiracyCivil RightsFourth AmendmentFifth AmendmentFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 198542 U.S.C. § 1983New York Civil Practice Law § 302(a)
References
22
Case No. 534627
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Edward Zeltman

Claimant Edward Zeltman appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his claim for benefits, alleging neck, lower back, left shoulder, and consequential knee injuries from two incidents on March 15, 2019, while working for Infinigy Engineering, PLLC. The Board, affirming a WCLJ's ruling, found the claimant not credible due to delayed reporting of a slip and fall, inconsistent medical histories, lack of witnesses, and a potential motive to fabricate claims after being reassigned. The court affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Zeltman failed to establish a causal relationship between his injuries and employment, emphasizing the Board's role as the sole arbiter of witness credibility and its reasonable inferences from the evidence.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsCausally-Related InjuryCredibility AssessmentDelayed ReportingInconsistent Medical HistoriesSlip and FallHeavy Equipment LiftingPre-existing ConditionsSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singer v. Salomon Bros.

James A. Singer, a former managing director at Salomon Brothers, Inc., alleged discriminatory dismissal based on his disability, breach of contract, and quantum meruit after his employment was terminated following a cancer diagnosis. Salomon Brothers moved to stay Singer's action and compel arbitration, citing an arbitration clause in Singer's U-4 form. Singer contended that his state discrimination claims were not arbitrable and that the U-4 form constituted an employment contract, thus falling under the Federal Arbitration Act's (FAA) employment contract exemption. The court, however, following US Supreme Court precedent, ruled that the U-4 form was a contract with the securities exchanges, not the employer, and therefore not exempt from the FAA. Concluding that arbitration is a favored means of dispute resolution, even for discrimination claims, and that Singer failed to demonstrate that arbitration would be an inadequate forum, the court granted Salomon Brothers' motion to stay the action and compel arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFederal Arbitration ActU-4 FormSecurities IndustryNew York Human Rights LawMotion to Compel ArbitrationInterstate CommerceWrongful Termination
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Edwards v. Jericho Union Free School District

Plaintiff Lisa Edwards sued Jericho Union Free School District and several individuals for race-based discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliatory employment practices under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1988, NYSHRL, and state emotional distress claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment, dismissing all of plaintiff's claims. The court found plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or provide evidence of pretext, or a link between hostile actions and race, or awareness of protected activity by the defendants. The emotional distress claims were also dismissed for not meeting the 'outrageous conduct' standard.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimSummary Judgment GrantedTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLEmotional DistressTeacher Tenure
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1994

Hunt v. Hunt

This case involves an appeal stemming from a dispute between two brothers, Donald and Edward G. Hunt, over the ownership of Hunt Brothers Contractors, Inc. Donald commenced an action claiming 50% shareholder ownership in the corporation and seeking an accounting, which Edward denied. Edward counter-sued for money damages, alleging Donald improperly withdrew funds from joint bank accounts. The Supreme Court dismissed Donald's claim and ruled in favor of Edward in the second action. Donald appealed, but the appellate court affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court found that Donald failed to prove his 50% ownership claim by a preponderance of the evidence, noting inconsistencies in his statements and lack of capital contribution. The appellate court also deferred to the trial court's assessment of witness credibility, and Donald abandoned his appeal regarding the damages awarded to Edward.

Shareholder disputeCorporate ownershipFamily business disputeEvidentiary burdenCredibility assessmentAppellate reviewJoint bank accountsBusiness assetsStock ownershipCorporate records
References
9
Case No. ADJ163759 (OAK 0311040) ADJ592970 (OAK 0311039)
Regular
Apr 02, 2016

EDWARD LEWIS vs. BRYCO CONSTRUCTION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves Edward Lewis seeking workers' compensation for injuries from Bryco Construction. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Lewis's petition for removal, an extraordinary remedy. Removal was denied because Lewis failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm from the judge's order continuing a settlement conference with discovery still open. The Board adopted the judge's reasoning that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy should an adverse decision occur later.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationMandatory Settlement ConferenceDiscoveryDahl DecisionVocational Expert
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 259 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