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

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 13, 2000

Utica Mutual Insurance v. 215 West 91st Street Corp.

Utica Mutual Insurance Company initiated a declaratory judgment action against Atlantic Mutual Insurance Company and 215 West 91st Street Corp. to determine Atlantic Mutual's obligation to defend and indemnify 215 West in underlying personal injury lawsuits. Utica Mutual had initially defended 215 West but later sought to recover costs from Atlantic Mutual. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment and granted Utica Mutual's cross-motion. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that Utica Mutual was equitably estopped from denying coverage after assuming the defense without reserving its rights. Consequently, the complaint against Atlantic Mutual and 215 West was dismissed, and it was declared that Atlantic Mutual was not obligated to reimburse Utica Mutual for the defense costs.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance CoverageEquitable EstoppelSummary JudgmentDuty to DefendIndemnificationAppellate ReviewInsurance LawNew York LawPersonal Injury
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PPC Broadband, Inc. v. Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses post-trial motions in a patent infringement case where a jury found Corning Optical Communications RF, LLC willfully infringed PPC Broadband, Inc.'s patents. The court denied Corning's motions for judgment as a matter of law and for a new trial, upholding the jury's verdict of willful infringement and the awarded $23.85 million royalty. The court also granted PPC's motion for summary judgment, dismissing Corning's inequitable conduct defense, citing a failure to prove specific intent to deceive or materiality. Several other defenses by Corning were abandoned or dismissed, while the equitable defenses of equitable estoppel and laches are reserved for a future bench trial.

Patent InfringementWillful InfringementInequitable ConductSummary JudgmentNew TrialJudgment as a Matter of LawRoyalty AwardDamagesPatent LawFederal Procedure
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Constitutional Rights v. Department of Defense

The Center for Constitutional Rights (CCR) initiated this Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) lawsuit against the Department of Defense (DOD), FBI, and CIA, seeking the release of images and videos of detainee Mohammed al-Qahtani from Guantánamo Bay. While the DOD and FBI acknowledged possessing such records but withheld them, the CIA issued a Glomar response, neither confirming nor denying their existence. The Court ultimately denied CCR's motion for partial summary judgment and granted the Government's cross-motion for summary judgment. The decision cited national security concerns, including potential harm to military personnel, extremist recruitment, compromised intelligence efforts, and adverse impacts on international relations, as valid reasons for withholding the records and for the CIA's Glomar response under FOIA Exemption 1.

Freedom of Information Act (FOIA)National SecurityClassified InformationGuantánamo BayDetaineeMohammed al-QahtaniSummary JudgmentFOIA ExemptionsGlomar ResponseIntelligence Collection
References
26
Case No. 04-CR-156
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Taveras

Defendant Humberto Pepin Taveras faces a homicide trial where the government seeks the death penalty for the killings of two associates during a drug trafficking dispute. Senior District Judge Jack B. Weinstein addresses the admissibility of a self-defense claim, emphasizing heightened protections for defendants in capital cases and allowing more leeway for evidence favoring the defendant. The defense intends to establish self-defense through witness statements suggesting the victims, José Rosario and Carlos Madrid, had threatened Pepin and his family. The prosecution disputes this, arguing Pepin deliberately sought out and murdered the victims, thereby precluding a self-defense claim as he initiated the confrontations. The court ultimately rules that Pepin will be permitted to argue self-defense, and related evidence will be allowed, with a self-defense instruction to the jury contingent on sufficient proof being presented.

Self-defenseCapital punishmentHomicide trialEvidentiary rulesDrug traffickingDeath penaltyJury instructionsCriminal lawDue processReasonable doubt
References
45
Case No. 2012 WL 3756270
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 2012

American Freedom Defense Initiative v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

This case involves the American Freedom Defense Initiative (AFDI), a pro-Israeli advocacy group, challenging the Metropolitan Transit Authority's (MTA) refusal to display a political advertisement on buses. The ad, which called for support for Israel and opposition to Jihad, was rejected by the MTA for violating its 'no-demeaning standard,' which prohibits ads demeaning individuals or groups based on characteristics like religion or national origin. AFDI sought a preliminary injunction, arguing that the standard violated their First Amendment rights. The court found that the MTA's standard was content-based because it selectively prohibited demeaning speech only for certain protected characteristics, while allowing it for others. Consequently, the court granted AFDI's motion for a preliminary injunction, deeming the MTA's standard unconstitutional under the First Amendment.

First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechPolitical AdvertisingPublic Forum DoctrineDesignated Public ForumContent-Based RestrictionStrict ScrutinyPreliminary InjunctionMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityAdvertising Standards
References
40
Case No. 86 B 11270 (BRL)
Regular Panel Decision

Iles v. LTV Aerospace & Defense Co. (In Re Chateaugay Corp.)

This case is an appeal to the District Court concerning two proofs of claim filed in a Chapter 11 bankruptcy proceeding against LTV Aerospace and Defense Company. The bankruptcy court had disallowed and expunged these claims, filed by the "lies plaintiffs" (nine women employees/applicants) and the International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW), arguing that class proofs of claim are impermissible. The District Court reversed this decision, holding that class proofs of claim are permissible under the Bankruptcy Code. It also affirmed that the UAW was authorized to file claims on behalf of its members, both as a creditor in its own right and as an authorized agent. The court found that the legislative history and policy of the Bankruptcy Code support allowing class proofs of claim and that the UAW had properly identified claimants and followed filing requirements.

Bankruptcy LawClass ActionProofs of ClaimChapter 11 ReorganizationCreditor RightsDebtorGender DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1964Labor UnionAuthorized Agent
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peterson v. Barry, Bette & Led Duke, Inc.

The case involves a worker's fall through a roof, leading to a motion for summary judgment on liability by the plaintiff based on Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants cross-moved for summary judgment on their 'recalcitrant worker' defense and for conditional indemnification against the third-party defendant, Wm. C. McCombs Company. The court addressed whether the facts supported the recalcitrant worker defense, which requires proof of a deliberate refusal to use available safety equipment. The court found a conspicuous lack of evidence for deliberate refusal, stating that unintentional failure or negligent omission would not support the defense against absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The court noted that workers were not expected to be tied on at all times and had to unhook for tasks. Therefore, the defendants failed to prove the crucial element of deliberate refusal, and their summary judgment motion on this defense was denied. The court granted partial summary judgment on liability for the plaintiff and granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification from McCombs, determining McCombs was an agent by operation of law.

Labor Law § 240(1)Recalcitrant Worker DefenseSummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityConstruction AccidentFall from HeightSafety EquipmentDeliberate RefusalNegligent OmissionContractual Indemnification
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Joyce v. McKenna Associates, Inc.

This case involves an appeal by defendant third-party plaintiff McKenna Associates, Inc., from two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The plaintiff, an employee of B.J. Lang Roofing, suffered injuries and opted for workers' compensation benefits, which McKenna subsequently paid due to Lang's uninsured status under Workers' Compensation Law § 56. McKenna's motion to amend its answer to assert a Workers' Compensation Law defense against the plaintiff's action was denied. Conversely, the third-party defendant Lang's motion to amend its answer to assert the same defense against McKenna's third-party action and defendant Leventhal's cross-claims was granted. The appellate court affirmed both orders, concluding that McKenna's payment of benefits did not establish a new employment relationship with the plaintiff, and that Lang was properly permitted to assert the Workers' Compensation Law defense.

Workers' CompensationPersonal InjuryPleading AmendmentAffirmative DefenseGrave InjurySubcontractor LiabilityThird-Party ActionCross-ClaimsEmployer ImmunityAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2005

Vita v. New York Waste Services, LLC

In an action for personal injuries, the defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss their sixth, seventh, eighth, and eleventh affirmative defenses. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the plaintiffs successfully demonstrated the lack of merit of these defenses. The defenses were based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The plaintiffs provided substantial evidence that the injured plaintiff was employed by Allied Waste Services, Inc. and its subsidiary, Island Waste Services, and was injured by a vehicle owned by defendant New York Waste Services, LLC and operated by defendant Gene R. Brewer. The defendants failed to present sufficient evidence to counter these claims, particularly regarding their assertions of the injured plaintiff being an employee of New York Waste, or that New York Waste was an alter ego, joint venture, or special employer.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityAffirmative DefensesMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(b)Appellate ReviewEmployment RelationshipAlter EgoJoint VentureSpecial Employee
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,056 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