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

T & M Meat Fair, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers, Local 174

The plaintiffs, T & M Meat Fair, Inc. and its owners, filed a class action lawsuit in New York state court against the United Food and Commercial Workers (UFCW) unions and affiliated funds, alleging fraud and breach of fiduciary duty related to their participation in ERISA plans. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing original jurisdiction under ERISA and LMRA. The plaintiffs then moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing that federal jurisdiction was improper and also sought attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court denied the plaintiffs' motion to remand, finding that federal jurisdiction was proper based on at least one claim arising under ERISA in the amended complaint, and also denied the request for attorneys' fees and costs. The court explicitly stated that Count III, asserting rights under ERISA for Milano, established federal jurisdiction.

ERISALMRARemoval JurisdictionFederal CourtState CourtRemand MotionClass ActionLabor UnionPension FundsHealth Funds
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, LLC v. Tveyes, Inc.

Fox News Network, LLC filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against TVEyes, Inc., a media-monitoring service. The district court previously upheld TVEyes' core service as fair use but reserved judgment on four specific features: archiving, e-mailing, downloading, and date-time search. In this renewed decision, the court ruled that TVEyes' archiving function is fair use. The e-mailing function can also be fair use, provided TVEyes implements adequate protective measures. However, the court found that the downloading and date-time search functions are not fair use, concluding they go beyond TVEyes' transformative purpose and pose undue risks to Fox News' copyrights and derivative businesses.

Copyright InfringementFair Use DefenseMedia MonitoringTransformative UseSummary JudgmentArchivingEmail SharingVideo DownloadingDate-Time SearchDigital Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jody Fair, Inc. v. Dubinsky

Plaintiff Jody Fair, Inc. moved to remand its action from federal court back to the New York State Supreme Court. The defendants, International Ladies Garment Workers Union and Local 25, had removed the case, alleging it involved a claim under the Labor Management Relations Act, specifically section 303(b) concerning secondary boycotts. Plaintiff argued its complaint alleged a common law prima facie tort under New York law, asserting malicious intent by the unions to coerce payment of a debt from a separate entity, Aansworth Ltd., for which Jody Fair, Inc. was not liable. The court granted the motion to remand, ruling that the complaint, fairly read, alleges a prima facie tort at common law and does not necessarily arise under federal labor law. The court also noted that the specific labor activities in question were exempt from federal secondary boycott bans under section 8(e) due to the needle trade exemption, suggesting no federal remedy existed.

Prima Facie TortLabor LawFederal JurisdictionState JurisdictionRemand MotionSecondary BoycottNeedle Trade ExemptionLabor Management Relations ActCommon LawUnfair Labor Practice
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Soto (Goldman)

Seven employees faced discharge and contested an arbitration award, arguing a conflict of interest arose from their union's attorney also representing their employer. After Special Term and the Appellate Division initially vacated the award, finding a denial of fair representation, the higher court reversed this decision and remitted the case. This dissenting opinion argues against the reversal, asserting that denying employees independent counsel, especially with the union attorney's conflict, fundamentally compromised the arbitration's fairness and vitiated the award. The dissent emphasizes that fair and good faith representation is essential, particularly when specific individual rights are directly implicated in arbitration proceedings.

ArbitrationUnion RepresentationConflict of InterestDue ProcessFair RepresentationVacatur of AwardAppellate ReviewCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee RightsJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Sipe

The dissenting opinion argues for the dismissal of a complaint alleging a breach of the duty of fair representation by a labor organization. The judge contends that merely providing incorrect advice, as alleged against the union representative, does not constitute the type of egregious conduct—arbitrary, discriminatory, or bad faith actions—that the duty of fair representation was established to prevent. While acknowledging a developing area of law where some courts have extended this duty to include negligence, the majority of jurisdictions maintain a stricter interpretation. The dissent emphasizes that the duty was created to prevent invidious treatment, not to address simple negligence. Therefore, the complaint's allegations are deemed insufficient to establish a cause of action for breach of this duty.

Duty of Fair RepresentationLabor LawUnion ConductGrievance ProcedureNegligenceArbitrary ConductBad FaithDiscriminatory ConductDissenting OpinionJudicial Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 2007

Drake v. Woods

Paris Drake petitioned for a writ of habeas corpus, challenging his New York state conviction for Assault in the First Degree and Criminal Possession of a Weapon in the Third Degree. Drake argued that the trial court violated his due process right to a fair trial and his Sixth Amendment right of confrontation by refusing to recall a witness (Carl Fortner) and by not inspecting a witness's (Witness A) psychiatric records or allowing cross-examination on her mental health. The court first addressed procedural default, finding that state appellate courts did not clearly rely on procedural bars. On the merits, the court denied both grounds for relief, concluding that the trial court's evidentiary rulings were not erroneous and did not deprive Drake of a fundamentally fair trial or his confrontation rights, as the jury had sufficient information to assess witness credibility.

Habeas CorpusSixth AmendmentDue ProcessConfrontation ClauseEyewitness IdentificationPsychiatric RecordsCross-ExaminationProcedural DefaultEvidentiary RulingsAssault First Degree
References
105
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. Lavine

This case addresses whether an indigent recipient of public assistance is constitutionally entitled to assigned counsel at a statutory fair hearing concerning the discontinuance of aid. The petitioner, whose aid was to be discontinued, was denied assigned counsel after Queens Legal Services declined representation. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, holding that while due process requires notice and an opportunity to be heard, it does not extend to the right to assigned counsel in such administrative hearings. The court emphasized that existing regulations provide ample safeguards and that the purpose of the hearing is factual ascertainment, not criminal prosecution. It distinguished this from child neglect cases where fundamental liberty interests mandate assigned counsel, concluding that if assigned counsel is to be provided, it is a legislative, not a constitutional, mandate. The court also rejected the equal protection claim, noting that fair hearing procedures are available to all.

Public AssistanceFair HearingAssigned CounselDue ProcessEqual ProtectionIndigencySocial Services LawWelfare FraudAdministrative HearingsConstitutional Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young Advocates for Fair Educ. v. Cuomo

Young Advocates for Fair Education (YAFFED), a non-profit organization advocating for improved secular education, initiated legal action against Governor Cuomo and New York state education officials. YAFFED contended that the Felder Amendment to the Education Law, which revised criteria for "substantially equivalent" private school instruction, unconstitutionally favored Hasidic Jewish schools by potentially lowering secular education standards. The defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing YAFFED lacked standing and the case was unripe. The court ultimately granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, concluding that YAFFED failed to demonstrate a concrete, imminent injury sufficient for Article III standing. Consequently, YAFFED's request for a preliminary injunction was denied, as the court found the claims constitutionally unripe for judicial review.

Education LawFirst AmendmentEstablishment ClauseFree Exercise ClauseStandingRipenessFelder AmendmentHasidic SchoolsSecular EducationPrivate Schools
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 2004

Portlette v. Toussaint

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a cause of action regarding breach of a duty of fair representation, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve an amended complaint. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the complaint lacked sufficient factual allegations to support the claim. The decision cited several precedents to support the dismissal. Additionally, the plaintiff's other arguments were found to be without merit.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAppellate AffirmationCivil ProcedureCPLR 3211Rockland CountySupreme CourtSufficiency of Pleadings
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1975

Nelson v. Dumpson

The court annulled the determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services, which had affirmed the New York City commissioner's decision to recoup an overpayment of public assistance from the petitioner. The overpayment was due to the inclusion of the petitioner's son, Frank, in the budget while he was outside the household. The initial determination was based on section 348.4 of the regulations of the State Department of Social Services (18 NYCRR 348.4), concerning 'suspected fraud' requiring evidence of willful withholding of information. However, the record from the fair hearing lacked substantial evidence to establish willful withholding or fraud. The petitioner testified to disclosing Frank's absence, and respondent's records did not contradict this. This annulment does not preclude the respondent from seeking relief for overpayment due to honest mistake.

public assistanceoverpaymentrecoupmentwillful withholdingfraudfair hearingsocial services regulationssubstantial evidenceannulmentremand
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 905 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