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. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. In re U.S. Air Duct Corporation
Regular Panel Decision

Mazur v. U. S. Air Duct Corp. (In Re U. S. Air Duct Corp.)

The case involves the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 58 (the Association) seeking to recover fringe benefits and wage supplement contributions from U.S. Air Duct Corporation (the Debtor) and its president, Franklin E. Bean (the Non-Debtor). The Association initiated an action in New York Supreme Court, which was subsequently stayed when the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Non-Debtor removed the state-court proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, prompting the Association to move for its remand. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Association's motion, asserting jurisdiction over the claim against the Non-Debtor based on its relation to the Title 11 case and the joint and several liability under New York Labor Law Section 198-c. The court also affirmed the permissibility of removal by "any party" under 28 U.S.C. 1478(a).

BankruptcyChapter 7RemovalRemandJurisdictionLabor LawFringe BenefitsWage SupplementsCorporate Officer LiabilityJoint and Several Liability
References
13
Case No. 2015-1563 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

Z. M. S. & Y Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal by GEICO General Insurance Company from an order of the Civil Court that denied branches of its cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff, Z. M. S. & Y Acupuncture, P.C., sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits for services billed under CPT codes 97811, 97813, and 97814. The Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's order, granting GEICO's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that GEICO had fully paid the plaintiff for services in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule for acupuncture, and since the services were rendered after April 1, 2013, the defense regarding the fee schedule was not subject to preclusion. Plaintiff failed to rebut this showing.

No-fault benefitsAcupuncture servicesWorkers' compensation fee scheduleSummary judgmentCPT codesAppellate reviewInsurance disputeMedical billingFee dispute
References
2
Case No. 2015-451 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

Z.M.S. & Y Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Gen. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an action by Z.M.S. & Y Acupuncture, P.C., as assignee of Melo, Carmen, to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from GEICO General Insurance Company. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to dismiss claims. The Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, limited the issues for trial regarding the application of the workers' compensation fee schedule to services billed under specific CPT codes. On appeal to the Appellate Term, Second Department, the Civil Court's order was modified. The Appellate Term granted the branches of GEICO's cross motion seeking summary judgment dismissing claims for services under CPT codes 97811, 97813, and 97814, and as so modified, affirmed the order.

no-fault benefitsacupuncturesummary judgmentCPT codesworkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate Terminsurance claimprofessional corporationsassigned benefits
References
1
Case No. 2015-1094 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2017

V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. NY Cent. Mut. Fire Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal brought by NY Central Mutual Fire Ins. Co. against V.S. Care Acupuncture, P.C., an assignee, concerning first-party no-fault benefits. The defendant appealed an order from the Civil Court that denied its motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims for services rendered between October 2009 and February 2010. The Appellate Term found that the defendant had properly mailed denial of claim forms and established that the amounts sought by the plaintiff exceeded the applicable workers' compensation fee schedule. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's order and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the relevant parts of the complaint.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFee Schedule DefenseDenial of ClaimWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleInsurance LawFirst-Party BenefitsAssignee RightsCivil Court Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jessica C.

This opinion addresses child abuse petitions filed by the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York against Gina C., a babysitter, concerning injuries to Travis S. and potential derivative neglect of Gina C.'s own child, Jessica C. The court examines whether a babysitter, whose services were performed outside the children's home and who is no longer employed, qualifies as a "person legally responsible" under Family Court Act article 10. Judge Guy P. De Phillips concludes that Gina C. is not a properly named respondent. Additionally, the court determines that a derivative finding of neglect for Jessica C. is not justified solely based on a single injury to Travis S., absent independent evidence of neglect. Consequently, both petitions against Gina C. are dismissed, emphasizing the limited jurisdiction of the Family Court and the specific interpretation of "person legally responsible" in the context of family-like relationships.

Child abuseChild neglectBabysitter liabilityFamily Court Act Article 10Legal responsibilityIn loco parentisJurisdictional limitsDerivative neglectStatutory interpretationParental responsibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2000

Heras v. P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, the plaintiff, a general laborer, was injured at a building construction site. The plaintiff sued P.S. 71 Associates, L. L. C., the owner and general contractor, and GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp., a subcontractor. P.S. 71 moved for summary judgment, claiming the plaintiff was its employee and thus barred from suing under Workers’ Compensation Law. GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp. also moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not hired until after the accident. The Supreme Court granted P.S. 71's motion and denied GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp.'s motion. On appeal, the order was reversed; P.S. 71's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the complaint against it reinstated, while GM Construction & Waterproofing Corp.'s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint against it dismissed.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityWorkers Compensation DefenseRespondeat SuperiorTriable Issue of FactEvidentiary Proof
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durant v. A.C.S. State & Local Solutions Inc.

Plaintiff Sharon Durant filed a lawsuit against A.C.S. State and Local Solutions, Inc. (ACS) alleging sexual harassment and a hostile work environment. Durant, a customer service representative, claimed she received two sexually explicit notes from a co-worker, Terri Simeon. Upon reporting the second note, ACS swiftly responded by moving Durant's workstation and disciplining Simeon, which ended the direct harassment. Despite these actions, Durant resigned, asserting constructive discharge because Simeon was not fired. The court granted summary judgment in favor of ACS, ruling that there was no quid pro quo harassment, the environment was not sufficiently hostile, no constructive discharge occurred, and her state law claims and intentional infliction of emotional distress claim also failed or were time-barred.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentQuid Pro QuoConstructive DischargeEmployer LiabilityCorrective ActionCo-worker MisconductEmployment DiscriminationTitle VII
References
21
Case No. 19-CV-526
Regular Panel Decision

Rauch v. Vale S.A.

This case concerns the consolidation of two putative class action lawsuits, Rauch v. Vale S.A. and Epstein v. Vale S.A., into In re Vale S.A. Securities Litigation. The lawsuits allege violations of securities laws by Vale S.A. and its officers, arising from alleged false and misleading statements regarding dam safety following two catastrophic dam collapses in Brazil. The court granted the motion by the Colleges of Applied Arts and Technology Pension Plan (CAAT) to consolidate the cases, appoint CAAT as Lead Plaintiff, and Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP as Class Counsel. CAAT was found to have the largest financial interest and satisfied Rule 23 requirements for adequacy and typicality. Other motions for lead plaintiff were withdrawn or denied as moot.

Securities FraudClass ActionConsolidationLead PlaintiffPSLRARule 42 Civil ProcedureRule 23 Civil ProcedureInvestor ProtectionCorporate MisrepresentationDam Collapse Liability
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rodriguez v. C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc.

Claimant, a probationary employee at C&S Wholesale Grocers, Inc., was terminated after injuring his left foot in a "preventable accident" while operating a pallet jack, pursuant to the employer's 90-day policy. This policy stipulated automatic forfeiture of employment for preventable injuries within the probationary period, contrasting with lesser penalties for uninjured safety violators. Claimant filed a discrimination complaint under Workers' Compensation Law § 120, alleging retaliatory discharge for potentially seeking benefits. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board ruled in favor of the claimant, finding the employer's policy discriminatory. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the policy discouraged employees from reporting injuries and pursuing workers' compensation benefits, thus violating the intent of Workers' Compensation Law § 120.

Retaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation DiscriminationProbationary EmploymentWorkplace Safety PolicyPreventable AccidentsEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationEmployee RightsDiscriminatory PolicyWorkers' Compensation Board Appeal
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 7,086 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