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
Jun 20, 2005

Hageman v. B & G Building Services, LLC

The plaintiff, injured during demolition work at a Home Depot store, initially sued Home Depot, and later commenced an action against B & G Building Services, LLC (Building) for personal injuries. Building cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that it was the plaintiff's employer and that the action was barred by Workers' Compensation Law due to an alter ego or joint venturer relationship with the plaintiff's direct employers, the Electrical corporations. The Supreme Court granted Building's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was reversed; the appellate court determined that Building failed to provide sufficient proof to establish an alter ego or joint venturer relationship, which would legally prevent the plaintiff from proceeding with the personal injury action under the Workers' Compensation Law exclusivity provisions.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAlter Ego DoctrineJoint VentureEmployer LiabilityDemolition AccidentAppellate ReviewNassau CountyConstruction Injury
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MG Building Materials, Ltd. v. Paychex, Inc.

This case involves plaintiffs MG Building Materials, Ltd. and Excellence Mortgage, Ltd. against Paychex, Inc., initially filed in Texas state court for breach of contract and other claims. The action, originally based on diversity jurisdiction, was removed by Paychex to federal court under the Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA) after plaintiffs filed a third amended petition adding class claims. This amendment transformed the case significantly, increasing the scope to thousands of putative class members and billions in damages, alleging a nationwide fraudulent scheme by Paychex. Plaintiffs sought to remand the case to state court, arguing Paychex's removal was untimely. The court, however, denied the motion to remand, applying the "revival exception" to the thirty-day removal rule, concluding that the third amended petition fundamentally altered the nature of the lawsuit, thereby creating a new opportunity for removal.

Class Action Fairness Act (CAFA)Removal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionRevival ExceptionMotion to RemandAmended PleadingFraud ClaimsBreach of ContractArbitration ClauseFederal Procedure
References
53
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. CIV.A.98-4838
Regular Panel Decision

Andrea Doreen, Ltd. v. Building Material Local Union 282

In this case, Building Material Local Union 282 (Local 282) and the Trustees of the Local 282 Funds initiated ERISA actions against JCS Enterprises (collectively referred to as Doreen) for unpaid fringe benefits. Doreen subsequently filed a RICO action against Local 282 and the Trustees, alleging extortion and retaliation for refusing unlawful payments. Local 282 also filed a cross-claim against Doreen for unpaid wages. Following an order by Judge Platt, the parties proceeded to arbitration, where Arbitrator Adelman found Doreen liable for failing to pay wages as required by the Collective Bargaining Agreement. Local 282 and the Trustees moved for summary judgment, which the Court implicitly treated as a request to confirm the arbitration award. The Court confirmed Arbitrator Adelman's June 28, 2002 Arbitration Award, finding that a bifurcated award determining liability can be final and confirmable. The Court also rejected Doreen's equitable and procedural defenses, noting they were considered and dismissed by both Judge Platt and the Arbitrator. The Arbitrator was directed to proceed expeditiously to the remedy phase, while the Court continues to consider the pending motions for summary judgment concerning the RICO claim.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationRICO ActERISACollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentJudicial ReviewBifurcated ArbitrationLabor DisputeUnpaid WagesUnion-Employer Relations
References
31
Case No. ADJ7937061
Regular
Sep 14, 2015

MANUEL MARTINEZ vs. WESTWOOD BUILDING MATERIALS, EVEREST INSURANCE COMPANY, administered by SEDGWICK CMS

Defendant Westwood Building Materials sought removal of an order setting a trial date, arguing prejudice due to unresolved discovery regarding the applicant's treatment history and the PQME's lack of review. The Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the WCJ's recommendation. The Board found defendant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm, noting removal is an extraordinary remedy. However, they suggested the trial judge could keep the record open for further PQME reports or depositions.

Removal PetitionPQMEDiscovery IssuesCirculatory System InjuryNervous System InjuryCumulative InjuryMandatory Settlement ConferenceDue ProcessIrreparable HarmSubstantial Prejudice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fioranelli v. News Building Corp.

Anthony Fioranelli sued News Building Corporation for injuries sustained during employment. The defendant sought dismissal, arguing that Workers' Compensation was the exclusive remedy because News Building Corporation was effectively the plaintiff's employer, New York News, Inc., due to corporate merger. Prior motions to dismiss on these grounds were denied on procedural issues. This court, however, found that New York News, Inc. was indeed the building's owner at the time of the accident under Business Corporation Law § 906(b)(2). Consequently, the court ruled that Workers' Compensation Law § 11 provided the plaintiff's sole remedy, dismissing the action against the defendant.

Workers' Compensation exclusivityCorporate mergerBuilding ownershipCPLR dismissal motionLaw of the Case doctrineBusiness Corporation LawEmployer liabilityPersonal injury claimProcedural lawSubstantive law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Huether v. New York Times Building, LLC

Plaintiff John Huether, a carpenter, sustained injuries while unloading drywall from a truck during the construction of the New York Times Building. The accident occurred when an unsecured steel plate, used to bridge an 8-10 inch gap between the truck and loading dock, shifted, causing a dolly loaded with drywall to tip and crush his right leg. Plaintiffs sued building owners, general contractors, and the truck operator, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200, as well as common-law negligence. The court granted dismissal of the Labor Law § 240(1) claim as not gravity-related. For Labor Law § 241(6), the court found 12 NYCRR 23-1.22 (b)(3) applicable and violated, granting plaintiffs partial summary judgment, while other cited Industrial Code provisions were deemed inapplicable. Claims under Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence were dismissed against the building owners (NYT) due to lack of control, but were allowed to proceed against the general contractors (Turner and Amec) due to disputed facts regarding their control over the work methods and notice of unsafe conditions.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Summary JudgmentLoading Dock SafetyUnsecured Bridging PlateIndustrial Code ViolationsGeneral Contractor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkPremises Condition
References
17
Case No. CA 10-01067
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

TIMMONS, JOSEPH v. BARRETT PAVING MATERIALS, INC.

Joseph Timmons sustained injuries while working on property owned by Barrett Paving Materials, Inc., leading to a lawsuit alleging Labor Law violations. Barrett Paving then initiated a third-party action against Timmons' employer, Schneider Brothers Corporation, and a separate action against Colony Insurance Company. The Supreme Court granted Barrett's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims in Action No. 1, and denied Colony's motion in Action No. 2, declaring Barrett an additional insured. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's judgment, concluding that Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241(6), and 200 were inapplicable to the facts of the case. The court also affirmed Schneider's duty to defend Barrett and Colony's obligation to provide coverage to Barrett as an additional insured.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation LawIndustrial Code RegulationsCommon-Law NegligenceContractual IndemnificationAdditional Insured EndorsementConstruction Site SafetyGravity-Related Accidents
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 1996

Sorrentino v. Ronbet Co.

This case involved a building employee suing the building owner for personal injuries sustained on the job. The defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, citing the Workers’ Compensation Law as a bar, was granted by the Supreme Court, Bronx County. This decision was unanimously affirmed on appeal. The court clarified that a prior denial of a summary judgment motion did not prevent a later motion to dismiss during trial. The merits of the case distinguished it from similar precedents, primarily because documentary evidence proved the plaintiff remained the defendant's employee despite claims of a management company being the employer, supported by W-2 statements, mortgage applications, and lack of supervisory evidence from the management company. The listing of the management company as the employer with the Workers’ Compensation Board was deemed inconsequential since the identity of the employer was not disputed before the Board.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer-Employee RelationshipDismissal of ComplaintSummary JudgmentTrial MotionDocumentary EvidenceSupervisionW-2 StatementMortgage Application
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 2,103 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