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
Feb 13, 2002

Jaycox v. Hardesty

Plaintiff Newton S. Jaycox rear-ended a stopped garbage truck operated by defendant Robert L. Hardesty and owned by Hardesty & Sons Sanitation, Inc. Plaintiff, along with his wife derivatively, commenced an action seeking damages for sustained injuries. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the plaintiff's own negligence caused the collision. On appeal, the court affirmed the lower court's order, stating that the plaintiffs failed to provide a non-negligent explanation for the rear-end collision, as plaintiff admitted to looking in his side-view mirror instead of at the road prior to impact. The court also found the defendants' assertions regarding the truck's illuminated lights to be credible.

auto accidentrear-end collisionsummary judgmentnegligenceVehicle and Traffic Lawappellate reviewdriver dutycontributory negligencevisibilityfactual dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eaton v. Chahal

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05009 [231 AD3d 1257]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2024

Matter of Miller v. Transdev Bus on Demand LLC

The case involves Candace Miller, whose husband, a paratransit operator, died from COVID-19 contracted during his employment in March 2020. His job required transporting often visibly ill passengers, presenting an elevated risk of exposure. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the claim for death benefits, finding a causal link between his employment and death. The Appellate Division, Third Department, upheld this decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the Board's finding of increased exposure risk. The court noted that contracting COVID-19 in the workplace qualifies as an unusual hazard and is compensable.

COVID-19Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsCausal ConnectionEmployment ExposureParatransit WorkerPublic ContactIncreased RiskAppellate AffirmationSubstantial Evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. E. W. Smith Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted a petitioner-respondent's application to stay arbitration demanded by respondents-appellants concerning obligations to welfare and pension funds under a collective bargaining agreement. This judgment was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the broad arbitration provision in the agreement meant issues regarding contract termination, modification, or renewal were properly for the arbitrators to decide. Furthermore, the court found that disputes over obligations arguably created by an expired agreement would still be within the arbitrators' jurisdiction. The appellate court also dismissed the petitioner-respondent's contention regarding the respondents-appellants' lack of standing. Consequently, the motion for a stay was denied, and the parties were directed to arbitrate.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWelfare FundsPension FundsContract DisputesAppellate ReviewLabor LawFederal PreemptionStandingJudicial Reversal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cullen v. BMW of North America, Inc.

This memorandum order addresses a plaintiff's failure to file a timely jury demand in a case removed from state to federal court. The plaintiff argued the removal was improper due to defendant's procedural errors, which they contended should extend the jury demand period or warrant a remand to state court. The court ruled that the defendant's procedural oversights in the state court filing did not affect the federal court's jurisdiction or extend the plaintiff's time for a jury demand. Citing Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 38(b) and 39(b), the court denied the plaintiff's request to allow the untimely jury demand, stating that mere inadvertence is not sufficient for relief. However, the court granted the plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint, while noting that asserting a new theory of recovery does not automatically grant a right to a jury trial for a previously waived issue.

Jury DemandRemoval of ActionFederal Civil ProcedureWaiver of Jury TrialAmended PleadingsJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTimelinessFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craig v. New York Telephone Co.

This appeal stems from a wrongful death action where the plaintiff's decedent died of a heart attack after working at a fire scene. The plaintiff sought discovery from the defendant, Telephone Company, regarding the fire and workplace conditions. The defendant appealed Justice Wright's order to comply with discovery demands. The appellate court modified the order, striking plaintiff's demand number two as overly broad and burdensome, while affirming demands three and four as sufficiently specific, thus partially affirming and partially modifying the original order.

DiscoveryInspectionWrongful DeathWorkplace SafetyFire IncidentAppellate ReviewProtective OrderBurdensome DemandsSpecificity in DiscoveryCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1985

Claim of Agnello v. Ippolito

This case involves an appeal from an amended decision of the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer contested the Board's finding of an employer-employee relationship and a $25,000 security demand. The court affirmed the Board's factual determination that the claimant was an employee, citing that it was supported by substantial evidence. However, the court found that the record lacked a rational basis for the $25,000 security demand, which was made pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 26. Therefore, the decision was modified by reversing the part that sustained the security demand and the matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the ruling, while the remainder of the decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipSecurity DemandAppellate ReviewFactual DeterminationSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawDiscretionary PowerRemittalWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1992

Arroyo v. Fourteen Estusia Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, issued an Order on March 17, 1992, which unanimously affirmed a lower court's decision. The order denied the defendants' cross-motion to compel the infant plaintiff, a four-year-old who witnessed her mother's rape, to appear for a deposition, citing potential trauma and unlikelihood of providing relevant information beyond her mother's testimony. Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion to vacate the defendants' demand for a verified bill of particulars. The court found the 22-page demand, containing 200 requests, to be excessively detailed and improperly sought evidentiary material, warranting vacatur of the entire demand.

Infant plaintiffDepositionProtective orderBill of particularsVacate demandEvidentiary materialNegligent maintenanceSexual assaultTraumaSupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meyerson v. Prime Realty Services, LLC

This case addresses a novel legal question: whether a state consumer protection statute can be used to protect a Social Security number (SSN) from disclosure between private parties when no statute or regulation mandates it. The plaintiff's landlord and its agents demanded her SSN to renew her lease, citing a local law that does not actually authorize such a demand. The court found that a SSN is prima facie privileged information and that the landlord's demand was deceptive under New York's General Business Law § 349, as it misleadingly suggested the information was legally required and non-compliance would lead to eviction. The defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was denied, with the court allowing the plaintiff's claim for protection to proceed.

Social Security Number PrivacyIdentity TheftConsumer Protection LawLandlord-Tenant LawMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefInformational PrivacyPrivacy Act of 1974General Business Law § 349Deceptive Practices
References
46
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02510 [137 AD3d 680]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2016

Asbestos Workers Philadelphia Pension Fund v. Bell

This is a derivative action brought by shareholders of JPMorgan Chase & Co. against its directors and officers, alleging that they approved the sale of subprime mortgages without proper oversight, leading to significant corporate losses. The plaintiffs failed to make a pre-suit demand on the board, arguing that such a demand would be futile. The Supreme Court, New York County, dismissed the complaint, and the Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this dismissal. Applying Delaware law, the Appellate Division found that the plaintiffs did not provide particularized facts sufficient to establish demand futility under either the Aronson test for board action or the Rales test for board inaction, concluding that the board members were disinterested and independent, and their actions were a valid exercise of business judgment.

Shareholder Derivative ActionDemand FutilityBusiness Judgment RuleCorporate GovernanceDelaware LawBoard OversightSubprime MortgagesToxic AssetsCorporate LiabilityDirector Independence
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 274 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