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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00204 [190 AD3d 788]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2021

Yong Qiao Zhao v. A.T.C. Constr. Group Corp.

The plaintiff, Yong Qiao Zhao, appealed from an order regarding his personal injury claim under Labor Law § 240 (1) after falling from a ladder. He was injured while disposing of construction debris from one project at a dumpster located at an unrelated project site. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which had granted summary judgment to 237 Henry Street Realty, LLC, dismissing the claim against it. The court found no nexus between 237 Henry and the plaintiff's work, as he was not hired to work at their property. Additionally, the court upheld the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion against A.T.C. Construction Group Corp. due to the existence of triable issues of fact.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAppellate DivisionOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityNexus RequirementPremises LiabilityConstruction Debris
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry C. v. Faith A.

Henry C., an incarcerated father, petitioned for visitation rights with his two children, Henry C. Jr. and Kelly Ann. The respondent, Faith (the natural mother), did not oppose visitation but sought limitations. A Law Guardian was appointed for the children and subsequently filed a motion requesting Henry C. to provide handwriting samples. This request aimed to verify the authorship of certain documents, including a birthday card that questioned Henry C.'s paternity and another containing hostile messages purportedly from the children. Henry C.'s counsel opposed the motion, arguing against the CPLR's applicability and the probative value of the samples. The court, emphasizing the best interest of the child in visitation cases and the broad scope of discovery, granted the Law Guardian's request for the handwriting samples, deeming them highly probative for the visitation determination.

Visitation RightsIncarcerated ParentHandwriting AnalysisBest Interest of the ChildParental RightsDiscoveryCPLR 3101Child CustodyPaternity DisputeEvidence Admissibility
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dewan v. Blue Man Group Limited Partnership

Plaintiff Brian Dewan, a musician, sued the Blue Man Group entities and individuals, seeking a declaration of co-authorship for musical compositions used in their "Blue Man Group: Tubes" performance and damages for state law claims. Dewan claimed he collaborated with the defendants in composing music for the show and was repeatedly assured of his co-authorship rights and that an agreement would be formalized, but it never materialized. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the co-authorship claim under the Copyright Act was time-barred. The court found that Dewan's equitable estoppel argument was unreasonable after late 1993 or 1994, as he had sufficient notice that a lawsuit was necessary. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal co-authorship claim due to the expiration of the statute of limitations and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Copyright ActCo-authorshipStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMusical CompositionsCollaborationDeclaratory Judgment
References
11
Case No. 06 Civ. 0822(RJH)
Regular Panel Decision

Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses two consolidated securities fraud actions against Royal Group Technologies Limited and its officers and directors. The plaintiffs, known as the 'Snow Group', allege a fraudulent scheme involving false and misleading statements to inflate Royal Group's stock price, violating Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Exchange Act. The Court consolidated the two actions, Vanamringe v. Royal Group Technologies Limited and Messinger v. Royal Group Technologies Limited, under the caption In re Royal Group Technologies Securities Litigation. The Snow Group's motion for appointment as lead plaintiff was granted, as they demonstrated the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for typicality and adequacy. The Court also approved the Snow Group's selection of Lerach Coughlin Stoia Geller Rudman & Robbins LLP and Labaton Sucharow & Rudoff LLP as co-lead counsel for the class.

Securities FraudClass ActionLead PlaintiffConsolidationPSLRAFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23Corporate FraudStock ManipulationInvestor ProtectionExchange Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garcia v. Henry Street Settlement

Lydia Garcia, an Hispanic female, was terminated from her employment at Henry Street Settlement after nearly 27 years. She filed a complaint alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry Street argued that her position was eliminated due to a reduction in force caused by a loss of funding. Garcia also claimed a hostile work environment due to a Spanish-speaking policy and discriminatory denial of a new position. The court granted Henry Street's motion for summary judgment, finding that Garcia failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, and that Henry Street provided a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActReduction in ForcePretext for DiscriminationPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting Framework
References
41
Case No. 533982
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Henry G. Lopez Mendez

The case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision regarding the effective cancellation of an employer's insurance policy. Claimant, Henry G. Lopez Mendez, was injured while working for TGA Construction, LLC. The core issue was whether Merchants Mutual Insurance Company had properly canceled the employer's policy due to non-payment before the accident, thereby making the employer uninsured. The Board, after full review, found the carrier failed to strictly comply with the notice requirements for cancellation under Workers' Compensation Law § 54 (5). The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's determination, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that the carrier's proof of mailing was insufficient to establish a nexus with the cancellation notice.

Workers' CompensationInsurance CancellationNon-paymentStatutory ComplianceNotice RequirementsCertified MailAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardPolicy LapseEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. 1:10-cv-03461-PAC
Regular Panel Decision

Richman v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses six consolidated class actions against Goldman Sachs & Co. and its officers and directors, alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The plaintiffs claim the defendants made false and misleading statements regarding a collateralized debt obligation (CDO) security and failed to disclose a Wells notice from the SEC and a subsequent criminal investigation, which led to a significant drop in Goldman Sachs' stock price. The Court consolidated the actions and proceeded to determine the 'most adequate plaintiff' to serve as lead plaintiff under the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act (PSLRA). After evaluating several contenders and applying the four *Lax* factors for financial interest, the Court designated the Pension Group as the lead plaintiff. The Pension Group comprises the Arkansas Teachers Retirement System, the West Virginia Investment Management Board, and the Plumbers and Pipefitters Pension Group, and their selection of Robbins Geller Rudman & Dowd, LLP and Labaton Sucharow, LLP as co-lead counsels was approved.

Securities LitigationClass ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRAConsolidation of CasesFinancial InterestRule 23 RequirementsMisleading StatementsCollateralized Debt Obligation (CDO)Goldman Sachs
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 02549 [216 AD3d 833]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2023

Santiago v. Hanley Group, Inc.

David Santiago, a construction worker, was allegedly injured after falling from a roof while performing construction work. He and his wife initiated a lawsuit against the general contractor, Hanley Group, Inc., asserting, among other claims, a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) for failure to provide adequate safety devices. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against Hanley Group, Inc. Hanley Group, Inc. appealed, contending that it had complied with its statutory duty or that Santiago's conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries, or that he was a recalcitrant worker. The Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the defendant failed to raise a triable issue of fact on any of its contentions and therefore affirmed the lower court's order.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentFall from HeightRecalcitrant Worker DefenseSole Proximate CauseGeneral Contractor LiabilitySafety Devices
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Henry v. NYC Health & Hospital Corp.

Plaintiff Collette Henry, an African-American woman, sued her employer, New York City Health & Hospital Corporation (HHC), and supervisors Arena and Boylan, alleging race and gender discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, § 1981, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL. Henry claimed Arena made racially charged remarks, mocked her appearance, and subjected her to adverse employment actions after she complained. The defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss the federal and state discrimination and retaliation claims, finding Henry failed to plausibly allege an adverse employment action or discriminatory intent. The Court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over her city-law NYCHRL claims.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981NYSHRLNYCHRLMotion to DismissAdverse Employment Action
References
79
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00118 [190 AD3d 489]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Henry v. Split Rock Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC

Plaintiff Ian Henry, an HVAC technician, was injured on January 24, 2014, at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, when a circuit breaker allegedly exploded. He was inspecting a newly installed rooftop air conditioning unit and was escorted to an electrical room by a Split Rock employee. Split Rock moved for summary judgment, arguing Henry's failure to turn off the power caused the incident, but Henry testified the power was already off. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion, finding unresolved factual issues regarding the accident's cause and whether the risks were readily observable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that material issues of fact remained for trial.

Summary JudgmentHVAC TechnicianWorkplace AccidentCircuit Breaker ExplosionMaterial Issues of FactObservable RisksNegligenceThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,708 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