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
Aug 31, 1995

Pesantez v. Boyle Environmental Services, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an order on August 31, 1995, concerning a class action brought by employees seeking prevailing wages for asbestos removal work. The court modified a previous order, redefining the class to specifically include all past and present employees of Azevedo & Boyle Contracting, Inc. and its alleged successor, Boyle Environmental Services Inc. It also stayed all claims against J. Greaney Construction Corp. due to bankruptcy, and against Reliance Insurance Company of New York as Greaney's surety. Furthermore, the court remanded claims made under Labor Law § 220 to the IAS Court for further development and determination, while affirming common-law breach of contract claims.

Wage disputeClass actionPrevailing wageAsbestos removalLabor Law § 220Class certificationBankruptcy stayBreach of contractNew York CountySupreme Court
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2010

In re Marsh Erisa Litigation

Named Plaintiffs Donald Hundley, Conrad Simon, and Leticia Hernandez brought a class action lawsuit against Marsh & McLennan Companies, Inc. (MMC) alleging breaches of fiduciary duties under ERISA related to imprudent investments in MMC stock within the company's 401(k) plan. The litigation, complex in scope and involving extensive discovery, ultimately led to a $35 million class action settlement after arm's-length negotiations facilitated by a mediator. The Court approved the settlement, certified the class for settlement purposes, and sanctioned the plan of allocation. Additionally, the decision granted substantial attorneys' fees and expenses to lead counsel, alongside case contribution awards for the named plaintiffs, while rejecting the two objections received. This ruling concludes a significant ERISA litigation, emphasizing the protection of retirement savings for American workers.

ERISAClass ActionSettlement ApprovalFiduciary Duty401(k) PlanStock InvestmentAttorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesClass CertificationPlan of Allocation
References
78
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Anjost Corp.

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Anjost Corporation and its principals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including issues with minimum wage, overtime pay, tip withholding, and uniform costs. The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, following a prior conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Evaluating the proposed classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were largely met. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification in a modified form, establishing three specific classes: a Tipped Employee Class, a Spread of Hours and Wage Statement Class, and a Uniform Claims Class. The decision also included orders for the defendants to disclose class member information and for both parties to jointly prepare a proposed class notice.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and Hour ClaimsOvertime WagesMinimum WageTip WithholdingUniform CostsWage StatementsSpread of Hours Premium
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2000

Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses the preliminary issues of class certification in a nationwide smoker class action. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of individuals who developed lung cancer due to smoking defendants' cigarettes. The defendants, referred to as "Tobacco," challenge the claims' substantive and factual viability, as well as the suitability for class action, citing varied state laws under the Erie doctrine and due process concerns. Senior District Judge Weinstein, acknowledging the complexities, reserves the decision on class certification and grants a preliminary evidentiary hearing. The court explores potential approaches to manage diverse state laws and discusses the necessity of plaintiffs demonstrating a feasible trial structure for a large class.

Class ActionSmoker Class ActionTobacco LitigationLung CancerClass CertificationRule 23Erie DoctrineConflict of LawsMultistate LitigationDue Process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2007

Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the burden of establishing class certification criteria rests with the party seeking it, and the class certification statute should be liberally construed. Despite inconsistencies in the class representative's testimony and variations in damages among different trades, the court found sufficient evidence for numerosity and commonality of claims. The decision reiterates that the inquiry into a claim's merit for class certification is limited and not a substitute for summary judgment or trial.

Class ActionClass CertificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary BasisNumerosityCommonalityWage DisputesUnderpayment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wesley v. John Mullins & Sons, Inc.

Defendant John Mullins & Sons, Inc. moved to dismiss the plaintiff's pendent state law claim or, alternatively, to decertify the class action. The plaintiff had initially filed a class suit in February 1974, alleging violations of the Truth-in-Lending Act and the New York Retail Installment Sales Act. Although the action was tentatively certified as a class action, subsequent amendments to both federal and New York laws imposed significant limitations on recoveries in class actions involving statutory penalties. The court found that allowing the state law class claim to proceed would result in recoveries far exceeding federal limits and would contravene public policy against overwhelming penalty judgments. Therefore, the court dismissed the class action aspect of the plaintiff's state claim for lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and decertified the class, while allowing the plaintiff to pursue an individual claim.

Pendent JurisdictionClass ActionTruth-in-Lending ActNew York Retail Installment Sales ActDismissal of ClaimDecertification of ClassStatutory PenaltiesFederal Question JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionFederal-State Conflict
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Heagney v. European American Bank

Plaintiffs in this action allege that the defendant, European American Bank, discriminated against them based on age, violating the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). The plaintiffs sought the court's authorization to proceed as an "opt-in" class action and to send notice to potential class members. The Court granted the motion, concluding that the case may proceed as an opt-in class suit, broadly defining the class to include employees whose employment was terminated through various mechanisms, not just early retirement, between June 1, 1984, and December 31, 1985. Furthermore, the Court determined that plaintiffs' counsel could provide written notice to other potential class members without requiring formal court authorization, citing recent Supreme Court rulings on attorney advertising and finding no legal precedent to prohibit such notice. The Court also found that the administrative filing requirements under the ADEA were satisfied for the class.

Age DiscriminationADEAClass ActionOpt-in ClassClass CertificationAttorney AdvertisingSolicitation of ClaimsEEOC Administrative ChargeFair Labor Standards ActEarly Retirement Incentive Program
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Columbia University

The plaintiffs in this action filed their complaint on June 15, 1973, but failed to move for a class action determination within the required sixty days, missing the deadline by over four weeks. The court found that this delay hampered public business and that no valid excuse was offered for the untimeliness. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' attorneys' failure to adhere to clear rules indicates they would not adequately protect the class interests. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the action as a class action was granted, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for a class action determination was denied.

Untimely MotionClass Action DismissalProcedural RulesRule 23(c)(1)Rule 23(a)(4)Attorney ConductJudicial DiscretionDelayFailure to ProsecuteRule 11A(c)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2015

Marcus v. AXA Advisors, LLC

Plaintiffs, a group of pre-contract associates and employee-agents, filed a class action against AXA Advisors, LLC, AXA Financial Services, LLC, and AXA Network, LLC (collectively, "AXA"). They alleged that AXA misclassified them as independent contractors and outside sales agents, thereby violating the New York Labor Law's minimum wage and overtime provisions. Plaintiffs sought class certification for their claims. District Judge Pamela K. Chen denied the motion for class certification, finding insufficient commonality among unlicensed pre-contract associates and 20th edition employee-agents due to variations in their working conditions. While licensed pre-contract associates did show commonality, the court determined that the sole proposed class representative, Bennet Marcus, was not typical of that class.

Class ActionLabor LawMinimum WageOvertimeIndependent ContractorOutside Sales AgentMisclassificationFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor Law
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 654 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