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
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Equality Specialities

Plaintiff Bonnie Hayes initiated an action against Equality Specialties, Inc., MNC Stribbons Inc., and MNC Sourcing Solutions, Inc., asserting claims of breach of contract, promissory estoppel, unjust enrichment, quantum meruit, and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 190-99, stemming from the termination of her employment by Equality. Her claims against MNC entities were predicated on a theory of successor liability for Equality's alleged wrongs. MNC moved for summary judgment, contending that Hayes failed to demonstrate a triable issue of fact regarding successor liability. The Court evaluated Hayes's arguments for de facto merger, implied assumption of liabilities, and fraud, ultimately finding insufficient evidence to establish any of these exceptions to the general rule against successor liability. Consequently, the Court granted MNC's motion for summary judgment, ordering Hayes to pursue a default judgment against Equality or dismiss the action.

Successor LiabilitySummary JudgmentBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentQuantum MeruitWage ClaimsDe Facto MergerAsset Sale AgreementCorporate Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowcher v. Beame

Plaintiff, a former school secretary, initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, the New York Teachers’ Retirement System, and the New York City Employees’ Retirement System. She alleged deprivation of her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection after her application for accident disability benefits was denied. The Medical Board of the New York Teachers’ Retirement System determined her disability was not proximately caused by a 1970 assault, and denied her requests for legal representation, witnesses, and access to a referred physician's report. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. Judge Metzner denied the motion, ruling that while a full adversarial hearing was not required, the plaintiff was entitled to know the evidence upon which the Retirement System made its determination, implying a due process violation in denying access to the medical report.

Due ProcessEqual ProtectionCivil Rights ActionDisability BenefitsAccident DisabilityAdministrative LawMedical BoardRight to CounselCross-ExaminationAccess to Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 20, 2009

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) filed suit against Nichols Gas & Oil, Inc. and Townsend Oil Corporation on behalf of ten claimants, alleging sexual harassment, constructive discharge, and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act. Defendants moved to compel the production of claimants' medical and mental health records. The court addressed the psychotherapist-patient privilege, finding that Claimant #2, who saw mental health professionals, did not waive her privilege because she only asserted a "garden variety" emotional distress claim and did not intend to use privileged communications at trial. The court clarified that the psychotherapist-patient privilege does not extend to medical, non-mental health providers. For seven claimants, including the Charging Party and Claimant #2, the court ordered the disclosure of medical records relevant to emotional distress, limiting the scope to one year prior to, through one year subsequent to, their employment with Nichols, subject to a protective order to safeguard privacy.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentDiscovery MotionPsychotherapist PrivilegePhysician-Patient PrivilegeEmotional DistressWaiverFederal Civil ProcedureCivil Rights ActHostile Work Environment
References
26
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re B.H. Children

This case addresses the Family Court's authority to issue an order of protection on behalf of foster care agency employees in a child protective proceeding. MercyFirst, a foster care agency, sought an order of protection against a respondent father to safeguard its caseworkers, L.S. and S.H., from alleged threats and harassment. Presiding Judge Emily M. Olshansky ruled that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant such an order, as New York statutes do not explicitly extend protection to foster care agency employees in this context. Consequently, the agency's motion for an order of protection was denied, and a subsequent motion for contempt related to a temporary order, which the court found void due to lack of jurisdiction, was also denied.

Family Court JurisdictionOrder of Protection AuthorityChild Protective ServicesFoster Care Worker SafetyStatutory Interpretation New YorkContempt of Court GroundsLimited Jurisdiction CourtsLegal StandingAgency Employees RightsJudicial Review of Statutes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pierre v. Crown Fire Protection Corp.

This case involves appeals by Crown Fire Protection Corp. and PEM All Fire Extinguisher Corp. from a Supreme Court order denying their motions for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful death complaint asserted against them. The New York City Transit Authority also cross-appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss third-party complaints filed against it. The appellate court dismissed the appeals of Crown and PEM as withdrawn. Furthermore, the order was modified to grant the Transit Authority's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the third-party complaint of Crown Fire Protection Corp. The court determined that Crown's work, which involved delivery and installation of fire extinguisher devices, did not fall under the categories described in General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Finally, the decision clarified that a recent amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits third-party suits against employers, would not be applied retroactively to pending actions.

Wrongful Death DamagesSummary Judgment DenialThird-Party IndemnificationGeneral Obligations Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation AmendmentsStatutory Non-RetroactivityContractual IndemnityConstruction vs. InstallationAppellate ModificationDismissal of Appeals
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2007

Assoko v. City of New York

Seventeen homeowners ("Plaintiffs") brought suit against the City of New York, NYC Partnership Housing Development Fund Company, Danois Architects, and other public and private defendants. Plaintiffs alleged constitutional violations (Equal Protection and Due Process) and state law torts arising from the purchase of defective government-subsidized homes in Central Harlem. They claimed inadequate inspections by the City, wrongful issuance of Certificates of Occupancy, and denial of independent legal and engineering assistance. District Judge Richard J. Holwell granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all federal claims. The Equal Protection claim was dismissed for failing to identify specific disparate treatment or irrational governmental action. The Due Process claim was dismissed as plaintiffs lacked a protected property interest in housing regulation enforcement or the non-issuance of Certificates, and the wrongful issuance did not constitute a constitutional injury. The Title VI Civil Rights Act claim was dismissed due to conclusory allegations of discrimination. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice. Plaintiffs were granted leave to amend their Equal Protection and Title VI claims, but not the Due Process claim, which was deemed futile.

HousingConstitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseDue Process ClauseCivil Rights Act of 1964Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissProperty InterestsGovernment SubsidiesDefective ConstructionNew York City
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce two subpoenas against Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., stemming from race and/or sex discrimination charges filed by four African-American women employees. Morgan Stanley contested enforcement, arguing against sharing information with charging parties due to a potential settlement and an existing protective order from a previous case (Schieffelin litigation), and claiming the subpoenas were irrelevant, vague, or burdensome. The Court largely sided with the EEOC, affirming its independent investigative powers despite individual settlements and upholding the right to share information with charging parties as per Supreme Court precedent. The subpoenas were enforced, but with modifications that limited the scope of requested 'informal complaints' and upheld the protective order from the prior Schieffelin case for any overlapping documents.

Employment DiscriminationSubpoena EnforcementEEOC InvestigationConfidentiality OrderCollateral EstoppelCharging Parties RightsTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSettlement ImpactRelevance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

G.D.S. v. Northport-East Northport Union Free School District

The plaintiff, a minor child G.D.S., by his father Robert Slade, commenced a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against Northport-East Northport Union Free School District, its Superintendent Dr. MaryLou McDermott, and Principal Irene McLaughlin. The plaintiff alleged violations of his Equal Protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment, New York State Constitution, NYSHRL, and NYCRL, stemming from severe anti-Semitic bullying by other students and the defendants' alleged deliberate indifference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court denied the motion to dismiss the Equal Protection claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the NYCRL claim, but granted the motion to dismiss the state constitutional Equal Protection claim and the NYSHRL claim.

BullyingHarassmentAnti-SemitismEqual ProtectionReligious DiscriminationSchool LawCivil Rights ActDeliberate IndifferenceMotion to DismissNew York Law
References
45
Showing 1-10 of 1,906 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