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. 96-CV-3879, 96-CV-6310
Regular Panel Decision

Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc.

Plaintiff Anita Schuloff filed two separate lawsuits against Queens College Foundation, Inc. and Brooklyn College Foundation, Inc., which were consolidated due to identical legal issues. Schuloff alleged violations of 26 U.S.C. § 6104 for the defendants' failure to promptly provide federal tax returns for public inspection, along with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Freedom of Information Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that 26 U.S.C. § 6104 does not create a private cause of action, thus precluding the related § 1983 claims. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing both complaints in their entirety.

Private Cause of ActionTax-Exempt Organizations26 U.S.C. § 610442 U.S.C. § 1983Rule 12(b)(6)Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistorySupplemental Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Aid Foundation, Inc.

The application for judicial approval of the certificate of incorporation for Aid Foundation, Inc. was denied. The court found the name "Aid" problematic and the stated charitable purposes vague and unclear. A more significant objection was that the proposed corporation, acting as an intermediary between donors and recipients, would duplicate existing charitable agencies. The judge emphasized the importance of established and well-organized charitable organizations and the potential for independent intermediaries to jeopardize organized efforts, even if honestly managed.

Corporate Name ApprovalCharitable IncorporationMembership Corporations LawVague Charitable PurposesDuplicative CharityJudicial DiscretionNon-Profit RegulationFoundation ApprovalPublic InterestOrganizational Efficiency
References
4
Case No. 96 Civ. 4126
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2003

Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Foundation for A Course in Miracles (FACIM) and Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) sued New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd. (NCCFE) and Endeavor Academy for copyright infringement of 'A Course in Miracles.' The central issue was whether the work entered the public domain due to extensive pre-publication distribution without copyright notice. The court found that hundreds of uncopyrighted copies were distributed without sufficient limitations on who received them or how they could be used. Consequently, the court concluded that the work was generally published before its official copyright registration, rendering the copyright invalid. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, dismissing the copyright.

Copyright LawPublic DomainPre-publication DistributionCopyright InfringementIntellectual PropertyReligious TextsSpiritual TeachingsManuscript DistributionLiterary WorkLicensing Agreement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Buffalo State College Foundation, Inc.

This action involves a plaintiff who sued Buffalo State College Foundation, d/b/a Families United, for employment discrimination. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant withdrew a job offer because of her association with her disabled child, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of discriminatory intent, partially relying on the "same hirer, same firer" inference. However, the court denied the defendant's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant's stated reason for withdrawing the offer was a pretext for discrimination. The court emphasized the early stage of the employment relationship and the unique circumstances of association discrimination claims under the ADA.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Association DiscriminationSummary JudgmentMcDonnell Douglas TestPretext for DiscriminationDisabled ChildFamily ResponsibilitiesHiring PracticesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
23
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rudolf Steiner Fellowship Foundation v. De Luccia

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Chestnut Ridge appealed a decision that annulled their denial of a use variance to the Rudolph Steiner Fellowship Foundation. The lower courts ruled that the Foundation had a preexisting nonconforming use that could be extended, citing Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v Weise. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Foundation's use for an intergenerational community with a nursing home was not a unique nonconforming use like quarrying, and thus could not be expanded as a matter of right over the entire parcel. The court also rejected the estoppel argument. The case was remitted to Supreme Court to consider whether the denial of the use variance was arbitrary and capricious.

Zoning LawUse VarianceNonconforming UseExtension of Nonconforming UseSpecial PermitZoning Board of AppealsIntergenerational CommunityNursing HomeCo-worker ApartmentsVested Rights
References
17
Case No. ADJ19479057
Regular
Aug 26, 2025

GERALD TORRES vs. PRO DEO FOUNDATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant, Pro Deo Foundation and State Compensation Insurance Fund, petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision, which found Gerald Torres to be an employee of Pro Deo Foundation. Defendant contended Torres was a volunteer or independent contractor and should be judicially estopped from claiming workers' compensation due to a prior settlement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of employment, emphasizing the WCJ's credibility determinations and concluding that the defendant failed to satisfy the 'ABC' test for independent contractor status. The Board timely acted on and subsequently denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPro Deo FoundationState Compensation Insurance FundGerald TorresADJ19479057Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersEmployee StatusVolunteerIndependent Contractor
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Underpinning & Foundation Skanska, Inc. v. Travelers Casualty & Surety Co. of America

Plaintiff Underpinning & Foundation Skanska, Inc. sued Defendant Travelers Casualty & Surety Company of America for payment under a Payment Bond for construction work. Underpinning sought $1,117,050.00 from Travelers, Urban's surety, after Urban failed to pay. Travelers claimed set-offs totaling $1,151,761.00 due to alleged delays caused by Underpinning. Underpinning moved for partial summary judgment, challenging specific set-offs. The court granted Underpinning's motion in part, disallowing Travelers' set-offs for $38,199.78 in extended field overhead and $126,000.00 in additional foundation work costs due to lack of competent proof and inconsistencies. However, the court denied Underpinning's motion to disallow $249,166.00 in HRH backcharges, finding a factual question remained regarding whether Urban's payment to the Owner for these charges was voluntary or necessary to protect its economic interests. Consequently, Underpinning was awarded a minimum recovery of $184,488.78 plus prejudgment interest.

ConstructionPayment BondSubcontractorGeneral ContractorSuretySet-offSummary JudgmentDelay DamagesEvidenceNew York Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palmer v. State University of New York Upstate Medical University

The claimant, an orthopedic hand surgeon, developed cervical radiculopathy and degenerative disc disease due to the physical strain of performing hand surgery and filed for workers' compensation benefits. His claim was controverted by the State University of New York Upstate Medical University and its carrier, as well as the Research Foundation of New York and its carrier. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant was a dual employee of both the University and the Foundation and that his condition constituted a causally related occupational disease. The University and its carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding there was substantial evidence to support both the dual employment status and the existence of a recognizable link between the claimant's condition and the distinctive features of his occupation.

Occupational DiseaseCervical RadiculopathyDegenerative Disc DiseaseDual EmploymentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsHand Surgery StrainMedical OpinionAppellate ReviewCausationEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08768 [167 AD3d 1437]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2018

Allington v. Templeton Found.

Jeffrey E. Allington sustained injuries when a defective ladder "kicked out" at a work site, leading to a lawsuit against Templeton Foundation (Bassett) under Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Bassett initiated a third-party action against Pulver Roofing Co., Inc. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, granting Allington partial summary judgment on liability against Bassett for Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) (based on 12 NYCRR 23-1.21 [b] [3] [iv]). However, Allington's Labor Law § 200 cause of action and most other § 241 (6) claims against Bassett were dismissed. Furthermore, the court dismissed Allington's common-law negligence claim and common-law indemnification claims against Pulver, while granting Bassett summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Pulver.

Labor LawConstruction site injuryLadder collapseSummary judgmentContractual indemnificationCommon-law indemnificationAppellate reviewWorkplace safety regulations12 NYCRR 23-1.21Third-party liability
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 167 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