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

Twenty First Century L.P.I v. LaBianca

This case involves Twenty First Century L.P.I and Twenty First Century L.P.II, owners of McDonald's franchises, suing several defendants for fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, aiding and abetting, and RICO violations. The defendants, including former employees Michael Malpiedi and Richard Redzinski, engaged in a scheme to embezzle millions by submitting inflated invoices for construction work and receiving kickbacks. The court granted partial summary judgment, finding all listed defendants liable for common law fraud and aiding and abetting breach of fiduciary duty. Malpiedi and Redzinski were also found liable for breach of fiduciary duty. Additionally, Malpiedi, Redzinski, Stephen Delli Bovi, and Delli Bovi Construction Corporation were held liable for civil RICO damages. However, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment regarding Angelo Vignola's and D & D Electric's RICO liability was denied, leaving that issue for trial.

FraudEmbezzlementKickbacksRICOBreach of Fiduciary DutySummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelMail FraudWire FraudInterstate Commerce
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. v. Penn Star Insurance

Same Day Delivery Service, Inc. sued its insurer, Penn-Star Insurance Company, seeking a declaration that Penn-Star must cover a personal injury lawsuit filed against Same Day. Penn-Star moved for summary judgment, arguing Same Day failed to provide timely notice of the claim and that the incident was excluded from the policy. The Court granted Penn-Star's motion for summary judgment, concluding that Same Day's notice to Penn-Star was untimely by approximately ten months, or at least two months even under Same Day's arguments, and that the delay was inexcusable under New York law. Consequently, Penn-Star is not obligated to provide coverage.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentTimely NoticePolicy CoverageDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal InjuryNew York LawInsurance Policy ExclusionCommercial General LiabilityAs Soon As Practicable Clause
References
39
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

First State Insurance v. J & S United Amusement Corp.

This case involves First State Insurance Company seeking a declaratory judgment against J & S United Amusement to determine its obligation to defend or indemnify for injuries sustained by Angel Ocasio. Ocasio was injured while working on a carnival ride owned by McDaniel and operated by J & S. First State's policy excluded liability for employee injuries, making Ocasio's employment status a central issue. The Appellate Division's suggestion of a special verdict in the underlying tort action was deemed inappropriate by the Court of Appeals, as First State lacked standing. The Court reversed the Appellate Division's order, remitting the matter to that court for a discretionary decision on whether to retain or dismiss the declaratory judgment action, considering alternative remedies available to First State.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance PolicyCoverage DisputeEmployment RelationshipTort LiabilityAppellate DivisionCourt of AppealsRemittalSpecial VerdictReservation of Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Varela v. Flintlock Construction, Inc.

The plaintiff, Norma Varela, filed a complaint in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, against Flintlock Construction, Inc. and Gregory Steck, alleging sexual harassment, unlawful discharge, and discrimination. An amended complaint filed seven years later added Andrew Weiss as a defendant, who subsequently filed a notice of removal to the District Court. Varela moved to remand the case to state court, arguing Weiss's removal petition was untimely. The District Court, presided over by Judge COTE, analyzed whether the 30-day removal period runs from the first-served defendant or the last-served defendant. The court adopted the 'last-served defendant rule,' consistent with the Supreme Court's Murphy Brothers decision, concluding that Weiss's removal petition was timely as it was filed within 30 days of him being served with the amended complaint.

Removal jurisdictionTimeliness of removalFirst-served defendant ruleLast-served defendant ruleFederal question jurisdictionService of processAmended complaintSubject matter jurisdictionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York Civil Practice Law and Rules
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2006

People v. Niver

The defendant was convicted of grand larceny in the fourth degree, welfare fraud in the fourth degree, and two counts of offering a false instrument for filing in the first degree, all stemming from her failure to report income while receiving public assistance benefits. On appeal, the defendant challenged the denial of her speedy trial motion, the legal sufficiency of the evidence for her convictions, particularly regarding the value of property wrongfully taken and intent to defraud, and several evidentiary rulings by the County Court. The court found no speedy trial violation, concluding that only 173 days were chargeable to the People. The court also determined that the evidence was legally sufficient to support the convictions, noting witness testimony on overpayment exceeding $1,000 and the defendant's failure to disclose workers' compensation income. The various evidentiary rulings, including those related to the Molineux application and business records, were upheld. Therefore, the judgment was affirmed.

Grand LarcenyWelfare FraudFalse Instrument for FilingSpeedy Trial ViolationLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceIntent to DefraudEvidentiary RulingsMolineux ApplicationBusiness Records ExceptionCriminal Procedure Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Hawes

The plaintiffs, William M. Greene, Sr., Karen M. Greene, William M. Greene, Jr., and Patricia Donnelly, filed a complaint alleging fraud and constitutional violations against State and Local Defendants, including Barbara Hawes, Christina Norton, Janet Rennell, Clarence Marsh, Roxanne Day, Paul Maroun, Dean Lefebvre, and Daniel McClelland. The plaintiffs claimed fraudulent inducement to move to Tupper Lake, retaliation for Mr. Greene's activism regarding Sunmount Developmental Center's closure, endangerment of Mrs. Greene, and violations of First Amendment rights. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action and lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Court found that federal claims against defendant Day lacked subject-matter jurisdiction, claims against State Defendants failed to state a cause of action under Section 1983 due to insufficient evidence of actual endangerment or hindrance of First Amendment rights, and claims against Local Defendants were 'wholly insubstantial and frivolous.' Additionally, the Section 1985(3) claims failed due to lack of class-based discriminatory animus. Therefore, the defendants' motions were granted, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety without prejudice.

Federal Civil RightsSection 1983Section 1985(3)Motion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFailure to State a ClaimFirst Amendment RightsDue ProcessDuty of Fair RepresentationState Employees
References
21
Case No. 79 Civ. 5379
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1980

Ninth Fed. Sav. & L. v. First Fed. Sav. & L.

This action arises from an agreement between Ninth Federal Savings and Loan Association of New York City and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Gadsden County for the purchase of treasury securities. Ninth Federal alleged that First Federal's Controller, Henry Burnett, did not intend to honor the agreement if market conditions were unfavorable, stating a claim under the Securities and Exchange Act. The court addresses First Federal's challenge to personal jurisdiction over pendent state law breach of contract claims and Burnett's motion to transfer the case. The court affirms its jurisdiction over the state claims based on pendent jurisdiction and grants the motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for convenience.

Securities FraudBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to TransferForum Non ConveniensExtraterritorial ServiceSecurities Exchange ActRule 10b-5Long Arm Statute
References
16
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. ADJ837893
Regular
Jun 04, 2009

GEORGE ALBERT JUAREZ vs. BAJA ROOFING, FIRST AMERICAN STAFFING, INTERTRIBAL STRATEGIC VENTURES EMPLOYEES OCCUPATIONAL INJURY AND INDEMNITY, FIRST INTERCARE, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS FUND

This case involves a worker injured while employed by First American Staffing (First), a tribal entity, and allegedly also by Baja Roofing (Baja) as a special employer. The Tribal Appeals Court has already asserted jurisdiction over First, and the WCAB acknowledges it lacks jurisdiction over tribal entities like First due to sovereign immunity. The WCAB rescinded the prior findings and returned the case to the trial level, requiring the applicant to first pursue remedies against First in tribal court before the WCAB will consider Baja's liability. This is to determine if First secured adequate workers' compensation coverage as per their contract with Baja, which would then potentially absolve Baja of responsibility.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTribal sovereign immunityGeneral and special employmentJoint and several liabilityRes judicataCollateral estoppelThird-party administratorEmployee leasing companiesTribal Appeals CourtInsured status
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 8,528 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