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
Nov 26, 2025

Matter of Jack V. (Jack U.)

This case concerns the termination of a father's (Jack U.) parental rights due to permanent neglect of his twin sons (Jack V. and another child). The children were removed shortly after birth in 2016 and remained in foster care for nearly their entire lives. The Broome County Department of Social Services initiated proceedings, alleging the incarcerated father failed to plan for his children's future despite the agency's diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. Family Court (Levine, J.) granted the petition, terminating parental rights and freeing the children for adoption. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that the agency met its burden of proof regarding diligent efforts and the father's failure to offer a feasible plan.

Parental rightsChild neglectIncarcerationFoster care placementTermination of parental rightsFamily lawAppellate reviewDiligent effortsService planBest interests of the child
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jack T.

This case involves an appeal concerning a mentally incompetent juvenile, Jack T., who faced multiple delinquency petitions. After being found incompetent and dangerous, Family Court Judges remanded him to the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that Family Court could not commit a mentally retarded juvenile under CPL article 730 and required adherence to Mental Hygiene Law procedures. Following remand, a new hearing assessed Jack T.'s competency and need for involuntary care. Medical examiners concluded Jack T. remained incompetent to stand trial but was no longer a danger to himself or the community and did not require involuntary commitment. Judge Gibbell, presiding, highlighted a legislative oversight, concluding that without certification under the Mental Hygiene Law or the ability to use CPL 730.50, the Family Court's hands are tied, rendering it unable to act in such cases, and strongly urged legislative reform.

Juvenile DelinquencyMental IncompetenceFamily CourtHabeas CorpusCPL Article 730Mental Hygiene LawDue ProcessInvoluntary CommitmentLegislative ReformJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

This case involves an action initially brought in state court by Billy Jack for Her, Inc., an apparel jobber, against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers’ Union. Billy Jack alleged tortious interference with contractual relations due to the Union's picketing aimed at securing a 'Hazantown agreement.' The Union removed the case to federal court. The court denied Billy Jack's motion to remand, ruling that the state law claim was preempted by federal labor law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. The Union's motion to modify a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the order had already expired.

Labor disputeFederal preemptionTortious interference with contractPicketingHazantown agreementNational Labor Relations ActNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(B)NLRA Section 8(b)(7)(A)Removal jurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alfano v. Costello

Plaintiff Georgiann E. Alfano filed a sexual discrimination lawsuit against her employers and supervisors, Joseph J. Costello et al., in the New York State Department of Correctional Services. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for various reasons, including lack of subject matter jurisdiction, failure to exhaust administrative remedies, statute of limitations, and failure to state a cause of action. The court partially granted and partially denied the motion, dismissing claims against some individual defendants and certain allegations due to exhaustion issues and timeliness. However, it retained claims regarding improper evaluations, unsafe conditions, and a hostile work environment, finding sufficient allegations to proceed. The court also clarified that Title VII claims against individual defendants in their individual capacities are dismissed, but state law claims against them are retained.

Sexual DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRule 12(c) MotionJudgment on the PleadingsAdministrative ExhaustionEEOC ComplaintStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineIndividual LiabilityNew York Human Rights Law
References
31
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01170 [225 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2024

Jia Zhong Liu v. Yung

The plaintiff, Jia Zhong Liu, allegedly sustained personal injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while working at the home of defendants Jack Chiang Min Yung and Tzufen Chiang Chen. Plaintiff claimed Jack Chiang Min Yung directed him to climb the ladder to address a leak. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss these claims against Jack Chiang Min Yung. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff's activity was outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) or that Jack Chiang Min Yung did not direct or control the work, thereby denying summary judgment.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHomeowner ExemptionNegligenceDuty to Supervise
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwarz v. Valente

The plaintiff, a worker hired to re-shingle the defendant Jack Valente's roof, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The jury initially found that while Valente violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide safety equipment, this violation was not a substantial factor in the plaintiff's injuries. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, set aside this portion of the verdict and granted judgment as a matter of law on liability for the plaintiff. Jack Valente appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order and interlocutory judgment, ruling that no rational person could conclude the Labor Law § 240 (1) violation was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallProximate CauseJury VerdictJudgment as a Matter of LawAppellate ReviewLabor LawNondelegable Duty
References
12
Case No. ADJ7224859
Regular
Mar 22, 2011

Peter Zirkle vs. UNITED PARCEL SERVICES, LIBERTY MUTUAL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed defense counsel Jack Costello's petition for reconsideration and removal. This petition challenged a Notice of Intention to Sanction Mr. Costello and his adjusting service for $\$ 2,500$ each. However, at an informal hearing, the WCJ vacated the sanctions after all issues were resolved and the petition was withdrawn. Therefore, the Board deemed the petition automatically dismissed as per regulations, and also because there was no final order subject to reconsideration at that time.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationRemovalSanctionPetitionDismissalAdministrative Law JudgeGallagher BassettJack CostelloUnited Parcel Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1983

Weber v. George Cook, Ltd.

Plaintiff Jack Weber, aged 68, filed a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) alleging wrongful termination by the defendant in 1981, after working as a manufacturers’ representative since 1971. He claimed his discharge was due to the defendant's knowing and willful desire to terminate older manufacturers’ representatives and replace them with younger individuals. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction as it did not meet the ADEA's definition of an "employer," which requires twenty or more employees for twenty or more weeks. The Court held an evidentiary hearing, concluding that even with a liberal interpretation, the defendant never employed more than nineteen individuals for the statutory period in 1980 or 1981. Consequently, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawADEASummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionEmployer DefinitionIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSales RepresentativeManufacturers' Representative
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. UNCLE JACK'S STEAKHOUSE, INC.

Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA § 216(b) against Defendants, owners of Uncle Jack's Steakhouse restaurants, alleging minimum wage, overtime, and tip credit violations, and retaliation. The Court, presided over by District Judge Deborah A. Batts, granted conditional class certification, finding a factual nexus among the claims of the named and potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Court also authorized court-facilitated notice to employees, with the exception of social security numbers, which were denied without prejudice to renewal. The decision emphasizes the minimal burden for plaintiffs at this stage and the remedial purposes of the FLSA. Defendants are ordered to provide employee information within 30 days.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationWage and HourOvertimeMinimum WageTip CreditRetaliationEmployee RightsClass Action
References
14
Case No. ADJ10301846 ADJ8235335
Regular
Feb 07, 2019

Jack Kessler vs. E. \u0026 J. Gallo Winery

Defendant E. & J. Gallo Winery sought reconsideration of a Workers' Compensation Appeals Board decision that found applicant Jack Kessler sustained a compensable psychiatric injury. The Board denied reconsideration, affirming the administrative law judge's finding that industrial factors were the predominant cause of the applicant's psyche injury. The defendant argued the applicant failed to meet the "predominant cause" standard for psychiatric injuries and that combining two separate injuries was impermissible. The Board clarified that the issue of injury causation is distinct from the apportionment of permanent disability, and the applicant's medical evidence met the predominant cause standard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationNew and Further DisabilityPsyche InjuryPredominant CauseLabor Code section 3208.2Labor Code section 3208.3Cumulative TraumaSpecific InjuryApportionment
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 137 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