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

Spherenomics Global Contact Centers v. Vcustomer Corp.

Plaintiff Spherenomics Global Contact Centers sued defendant vCustomer Corporation for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Spherenomics, a provider of outsourced call-center services, alleged that VCC, its subcontractor, improperly solicited and secured a long-term contract with their mutual client, Fingerhut, in violation of their November 2002 agreement. While the court found that VCC indeed breached the non-solicitation provision, it ultimately ruled in favor of VCC. The court concluded that Spherenomics failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that VCC's breach directly caused Spherenomics to suffer damages, specifically lost profits, deeming such claims too speculative to be recoverable under New York contract law or equitable theories.

Breach of ContractNon-Solicitation AgreementLost ProfitsDamagesCausationPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentContract LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guan Ming Lin v. Benihana Nat'l Corp.

Plaintiffs Guang Ming Lin, Qi Li, and Zeng Guan Li, delivery persons for Haru Sake Bar, brought an action alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL) seeking collective certification. Magistrate Judge James Francis IV issued a Report and Recommendation, advising denial of class certification without prejudice but granting the request for disclosure of employee contact information. District Judge Victor Marrero adopted this report in its entirety. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for collective certification for minimum wage, overtime pay, and tools of the trade claims due to insufficient factual nexus and specificity in allegations. However, it granted the request for defendants to produce names, addresses, and telephone numbers of delivery persons employed by Haru Too for the past three years to allow for further discovery, while denying disclosure of social security numbers at this stage.

Collective ActionFLSANYLLMinimum WageOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementTools of TradeDelivery PersonsRestaurant IndustryEmployee Rights
References
35
Case No. 08-cv-2970
Regular Panel Decision

Samirah v. Sabhnani

This Memorandum of Decision and Order addresses the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment in a civil suit against defendants previously convicted of federal crimes related to forced labor. Plaintiffs Samirah and Enung, former domestic servants, seek monetary damages from Varsha and Mahender Sabhnani, arguing that their criminal convictions collaterally estop the defendants from contesting civil claims for forced labor, peonage, trafficking, and wage violations. The Court largely granted the motion, applying collateral estoppel to most civil claims, including federal and New York state minimum wage and overtime violations. However, the Court denied summary judgment for the common law assault claim against Mahender Sabhnani, finding the criminal jury's findings insufficient to establish physical acts of imminent harmful contact required for assault. The decision also clarified that prior restitution awards do not bar civil damages and rejected the defendants' general objections regarding their Fifth Amendment privilege and requests for a mental examination.

Forced LaborHuman TraffickingCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentPeonageInvoluntary ServitudeMinimum Wage ViolationsOvertime WagesFalse ImprisonmentAssault and Battery
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Valone v. Valone

This case involves a father's attempt to gain temporary physical custody of his 14-year-old daughter in New York, where he resides, against his wife who lives in Tennessee. The father initiated a divorce action in New York, seeking custody. The wife, making a limited appearance, moved to dismiss the custody application, arguing the New York court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act (UCCJEA) and personal jurisdiction over her. The court determined it had subject matter jurisdiction over divorce and ancillary custody but lacked personal jurisdiction over the wife under CPLR 302(b) due to insufficient minimum contacts with New York, as their matrimonial domicile was too distant in time and the daughter's visitation did not establish personal jurisdiction over the mother. Furthermore, the court found the father's allegations of misconduct did not meet the 'imminent risk of harm' standard required for temporary emergency jurisdiction under the UCCJEA. Consequently, the wife's motion to dismiss the request for temporary custody was granted, and the entire divorce complaint was dismissed due to the lack of personal jurisdiction over the wife. The court noted the father was under no legal obligation to return the child until a Tennessee court issued an order.

Child CustodyJurisdictionUCCJEAPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionDivorce ActionTemporary CustodyEmergency JurisdictionMinimum ContactsDomestic Relations Law
References
22
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06423 [222 AD3d 1151]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Mosner v. LINK9 LLC

Claimant, a New Jersey resident, was injured in California and filed a workers' compensation claim in New York, despite the employer's office being typically in New Jersey. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ finding of jurisdiction and dismissed the claim, concluding there were insufficient contacts with New York to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for the Board to have jurisdiction over an out-of-state injury, there must be sufficient and significant contacts between New York and the employer to indicate the employment was, to some extent, sited in the state. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that such contacts were lacking.

Workers' CompensationSubject Matter JurisdictionOut-of-State InjuryNew York ContactsEmployer ResidencyEmployee ResidencyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentJurisdiction Dismissal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Welte

The defendant was charged with criminal contempt in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree for allegedly violating a 'no contact' order of protection. The defendant reportedly accessed the complainant's Facebook 'Friend List' and contacted friends and family, accusing the complainant, Maureen Perry, of denying him access to their children. The court examined whether these communications constituted a violation of the order or stalking. Citing ambiguity in the order and the lack of specific allegations for elements of stalking, the court found the accusatory instruments facially insufficient. Consequently, the charges were dismissed.

Criminal ContemptStalkingOrder of ProtectionFacebookSocial MediaIndirect ContactFacial InsufficiencyPenal LawDue ProcessAmbiguity
References
7
Case No. ADJ8574285
Regular
Jan 24, 2017

CALE HULSE vs. CALGARY FLAMES, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board reversed a prior award, finding California lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the applicant's cumulative trauma claim. The Board determined that the applicant, a professional hockey player, had insufficient connection to California, playing only 25-42 games out of over 848 total games. This minimal contact, insufficient for a legitimate and substantial interest, meant requiring the defendant to litigate in California would violate due process, as established in *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. Therefore, the applicant was awarded nothing.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardCalgary FlamesFederal Insurance CompanyCale HulseSubject Matter JurisdictionCumulative Trauma InjuryProfessional Hockey PlayerDue ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Legitimate Interest
References
6
Case No. ADJ9094930
Regular
Nov 08, 2018

ROBERT STANIFER vs. CHICAGO CUBS; WASHINGTON NATIONALS aka MONTREAL EXPOS; ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY/CHUBB;BOSTON RED SOX; TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) affirmed the decision to deny applicant's claim for cumulative trauma injury, finding insufficient connection to California. While applicant claimed to be hired in California by Hiroshima Toyo Carp, that employer is not a party, precluding jurisdiction under Labor Code Section 5305. The WCAB determined that applicant's participation in 12 games in California out of 440 total games over 11 seasons was de minimis and insufficient to overcome defendants' due process objection. Therefore, the minimal contact with California did not justify requiring defendants to litigate the claim in this state.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCumulative TraumaCalifornia ContactLabor Code Section 5305Subject Matter JurisdictionContract of HireDue ProcessFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)Professional AthleteDuty Days
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05844 [232 AD3d 1044]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2024

People v. Baez

Defendant Saul Baez was convicted of course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree, stemming from allegations of sexual contact with a victim under 13. He appealed the judgment, arguing legal insufficiency of evidence and that the verdict was against the weight of the evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the verdict regarding the weight of the evidence but reversed the judgment. The court found a Brady violation due to the prosecution's failure to timely disclose caseworker notes containing impeaching material, ruling that the delayed disclosure and the adverse inference charge were insufficient remedies. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial.

Sexual OffensesChild Sexual AbuseCourse of Sexual ConductBrady ViolationRosario MaterialDisclosure ObligationsImpeachment EvidenceAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceLegal Sufficiency
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2008

In re Jacob WW.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother's parental rights due to abandonment of her three children. The children were placed in foster care, and despite attempts by a caseworker to facilitate contact, the mother failed to visit or communicate with her children or the agency for the statutory six-month period. Although the mother's mother arranged a few brief family gatherings, the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding that these sporadic contacts were insufficient to prevent a finding of abandonment. The court also noted the children's positive adjustment to foster care and the foster parents' desire to adopt, supporting the termination of parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentFoster Care PlacementFamily Court AppealSchuyler CountySocial Services Law § 384-bVisitation RightsDue DiligenceClear and Convincing EvidenceAppellate Division
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,952 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