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
Jul 26, 2012

Mangione v. Jacobs

The case addresses whether a plaintiff's elective surgery, performed before court-ordered independent medical examinations (IMEs), constitutes spoliation of evidence. Plaintiff Susanna Mangione, involved in a 2009 taxi accident, failed to appear for multiple court-ordered IMEs despite prior personal injury lawsuits. She underwent spinal surgery on February 27, 2012, without notifying the court or defendants and without providing medical justification for the urgency. The court found this act to be intentional spoliation of evidence, irreparably prejudicing the defendants' ability to assess causation and defend against claims of exacerbated prior injuries. Consequently, the court denied defendants Ramabel Limo, Inc. and Glener V Simbana's motion for summary judgment on liability but granted defendant Jules J. Jacobs' motion to dismiss the complaint, dismissing the action against all defendants.

Spoliation of evidenceIndependent medical examinationPersonal injury lawsuitSummary judgment motionMotion to dismissElective surgeryCourt orders violationPlaintiff's misconductIrreparable prejudiceLitigation sanctions
References
58
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03590
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2021

Matter of Isabela P. (Jacob P.)

In this case, Jacob P., the father, appealed an order of disposition from the Family Court, Queens County, which found that he neglected his child, Isabela P. The Administration for Children's Services initiated the proceeding, alleging the father failed to provide adequate supervision and guardianship. The Family Court's finding of neglect was based on evidence that the father repeatedly made false reports of sexual abuse against the mother in the child's presence and encouraged the child to corroborate these allegations. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the father's actions created an imminent danger of emotional impairment to the child, thus failing to meet the minimum degree of parental care.

Child NeglectParental MisconductFalse AllegationsFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewEmotional ImpairmentPreponderance of EvidenceJudicial DeferenceChild WelfareCustody Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 1981

Malone v. Jacobs

This case involves an appeal by defendants Stephen and John Jacobs from a Supreme Court order denying their motion to dismiss the complaint filed by Daniel and Linda Malone. The Malones sought damages for personal injuries Daniel sustained in an automobile accident with Stephen Jacobs, with both men being volunteer firemen responding to an alarm. The appellate court determined that both were acting in the line of duty, making the Volunteer Firemen’s Benefit Law their exclusive remedy. Consequently, the order was reversed, granting defendants leave to amend their answer to assert this exclusive remedy defense, and summary judgment was granted, leading to the dismissal of the Malones' complaint. The court also affirmed that John Jacobs, as the vehicle owner, could rely on the same defense due to vicarious liability.

Volunteer Firemen's Benefit LawExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAffirmative DefenseAutomobile AccidentPersonal InjuryLoss of ConsortiumLine of DutyVicarious LiabilityMotion to Dismiss
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barrie v. Jacobs

Defendant Peter Jacobs, an attorney, faced three separate actions alleging he aided and abetted securities law violations related to Universal Cosmetics Corporation's stock offering. Jacobs moved to transfer these actions to a Maryland bankruptcy court, asserting jurisdiction due to his intent to seek indemnification from Universal. The court denied this transfer motion, ruling that a potential indemnification claim against a bankrupt entity does not establish the necessary direct effect on the bankruptcy estate, distinguishing it from cases where claims directly intertwine with the estate. Additionally, Jacobs sought to disqualify plaintiffs' attorney, Mr. Maybruck, arguing he was a potential witness. The court also denied this motion, concluding that while Maybruck's testimony might be useful, it was not 'strictly necessary' or 'otherwise unobtainable,' especially as his professional conduct was not directly at issue in the case. Both of defendant's motions were thus denied.

Securities Law ViolationAiding and AbettingIndemnification ClaimBankruptcy JurisdictionTransfer of ActionAttorney DisqualificationAdvocate-Witness RuleProfessional ResponsibilityFederal District CourtMotions Practice
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green v. Jacob & Co. Watches, Inc.

William E. Green, an African-American, brought an action against Jacob & Company Watches, Inc., Jacob Arabo, and MG Security Services LLC, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C § 1981. Green, formerly Director of Security for Jacob & Co., claimed he was terminated after objecting to racially offensive comments and discriminatory practices, including referring to African-American employees as "monkeys." Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, and Jacob & Co. also challenged the sufficiency of service of process. The Court partially granted and partially denied the motions to dismiss, allowing discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims to proceed under NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and § 1981, but dismissed Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims due to a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. Additionally, Green's cross-motion for an extension of time to serve process was granted.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIINYSHRLNYCHRL42 U.S.C. § 1981Motion to DismissService of Process
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kittelstad v. Losco Group, Inc.

This case involves a plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 241 (6), and 200, and common-law negligence. The court addressed whether Jacobs and Clean Air were statutory agents of the property owner (the State). Jacobs's contractual obligations and superintendent's authority indicated comprehensive oversight, raising a question of fact regarding its agency status. Clean Air also retained significant supervisory authority over its subcontractor, Campbell, despite its claims to the contrary, thus establishing a question of fact regarding its control. Additionally, the court found Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.7 (b) applicable and held that the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against Clean Air should not have been dismissed due to questions of fact concerning dangerous conditions or notice. Consequently, Clean Air was not entitled to summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Campbell.

Workers' CompensationLabor LawStatutory AgentSummary JudgmentIndustrial CodeConstruction AccidentSupervisory AuthorityNegligenceIndemnificationIssues of Fact
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1992

Carr v. Jacob Perl Associates

The plaintiff, an elevator maintenance mechanic, was injured after falling into an open elevator shaft while attempting to climb into a stuck elevator without proper equipment. The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant-appellant Jacob Perl Associates' motion for summary judgment, granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability against Perl, and denied third-party defendant-respondent Otis Elevator Company's cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified to grant Jacob Perl Associates summary judgment on its third-party complaint seeking indemnity from Otis Elevator Company. The appellate court affirmed Perl's absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as the building owner for failing to provide safety devices, finding the plaintiff was engaged in 'repair' work. However, Perl was found entitled to indemnity from Otis, the plaintiff's employer, as Perl did not supervise or control the work, and the elevator maintenance contract was solely between the lessee and Otis, making Otis responsible for the work.

Summary JudgmentIndemnityLabor LawElevator AccidentWorker InjuryBuilding Owner LiabilityThird-Party ComplaintAppellate ReviewConstruction LawSafety Devices
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laici v. Baldwin

This case involves a custody dispute between a petitioner mother and respondent father concerning their two children, Jacob and Sarah. The couple separated in 1982, and custody was temporarily placed with the Department of Social Services in 1984. Petitioner sought sole custody in 1986, supported by social workers, a psychologist, and the Law Guardian who cited her efforts to improve her life and ability to meet the children's emotional needs. Conversely, the respondent father largely remained unemployed and refused psychological testing. The court initially awarded custody to the respondent, emphasizing his current wife's stable living arrangement. The dissenting judges argue this decision erroneously prioritized the father's *derived* stability over the mother's demonstrated efforts and capacity for the children's emotional development, advocating for a reversal and award of custody to the petitioner mother based on overwhelming expert testimony.

custody disputeparental rightschild welfarebest interests of the childdissenting opinionfamily lawpsychological evaluationparental stabilitydomestic abuseappellate review
References
3
Case No. 11 Civ. 160
Regular Panel Decision

Jacob v. Duane Reade, Inc.

Plaintiffs Mani Jacob and Lesleena Mars filed a class action lawsuit against Duane Reade, Inc. and Duane Reade Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. They claim the defendants misclassified assistant store managers as exempt from overtime pay. The plaintiffs sought class certification for their NYLL claims. The court, presided over by District Judge J. Paul Oetken, granted the motion for class certification, finding that the class satisfied all requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation. The court concluded that common questions predominated over individual ones, making a class action the superior method of adjudication. Outten & Golden, LLP, Klafter Olsen & Lesser, and Gottlieb & Associates were appointed as class counsel.

Employment LawWage and Hour DisputeClass Action CertificationEmployee MisclassificationOvertime CompensationFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Rule 23(a) RequirementsRule 23(b)(3) RequirementsAssistant Store Managers (ASMs)
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piasecki v. Daughters of Jacob Nursing Home, Inc.

Rabbi Mendel Piasecki, a 79-year-old mashgiach, brought a discriminatory discharge action against Daughters of Jacob Nursing Home, Inc. (DOJ) under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. Piasecki alleged that DOJ administrators repeatedly inquired about his retirement plans and eventually discharged him, replacing him with a 27-year-old. DOJ moved for summary judgment, claiming Piasecki was fired for consistently leaving work early. Judge Edelstein denied DOJ's motion, finding that Piasecki established a prima facie case of age discrimination. The court identified genuine issues of material fact regarding whether DOJ's stated reason for termination was merely a pretext, citing ageist comments and the replacement by a significantly younger individual.

Age DiscriminationDiscriminatory DischargeSummary Judgment MotionADEAHuman Rights LawEmployment LawPretextPrima Facie CaseBurden-Shifting AnalysisFederal District Court
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 61 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