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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tasini v. New York Times Co., Inc.

Jonathan Tasini, a freelance writer, filed a complaint against The New York Times Company, challenging a "Release Agreement" offered to writers after a prior copyright infringement judgment (Tasini I). Tasini alleged the agreement, which required writers to waive claims to keep their articles in electronic databases, was unlawful and unenforceable, citing interference with copyright relief, unconscionability, duress, and breach of good faith. The New York Times moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The District Court, presided over by Judge Robert L. Carter, granted the dismissal, concluding that Tasini lacked both constitutional and prudential standing and failed to establish federal question jurisdiction, as the dispute largely involved state contract law. The dismissal was without prejudice.

Copyright LitigationArticle III StandingPrudential StandingFederal JurisdictionContract DisputeMotion to DismissDeclaratory ReliefFreelance JournalismElectronic DatabasesSouthern District of New York
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gerber v. Amalgamated Transit Union Division 580

The plaintiff was fired by CNY Centro, Inc. and filed a grievance which the defendant union failed to arbitrate within the stipulated time. The plaintiff sued the union alleging negligence, breach of collective bargaining agreement, and fraudulent misrepresentation. The union moved to dismiss, arguing federal preemption and a six-month statute of limitations. The court held that it had jurisdiction over unfair representation claims in state courts. It applied the six-month federal statute of limitations to the negligence and breach of contract claims, finding them time-barred. However, the court applied New York's six-year statute of limitations for fraudulent misrepresentation, finding that claim timely.

Unfair RepresentationStatute of LimitationsFederal PreemptionLabor DisputesGrievance ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementFraudulent MisrepresentationState Court JurisdictionNational Labor Relations ActDuty of Fair Representation
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sec. Investor Prot. Corp. v. Bernard L. Madoff Inv. Sec. LLC

Plaintiff Irving H. Picard, as Trustee for the Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC (BLMIS) liquidation, sought to recover approximately $156 million in avoidable transfers from the BNP Paribas entities (Defendants). The Defendants moved to dismiss the Trustee's proposed Amended Complaint (PAC) on multiple grounds, including improper filing, lack of personal jurisdiction, and statute of limitations. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding a prima facie showing of sufficient minimum contacts. The filing of the PAC was treated as a motion for leave to amend, which was granted in part for original subsequent transfer claims but denied for newly asserted claims due to being time-barred. The Court also found the Trustee failed to plausibly allege the Defendants' subjective knowledge or willful blindness to the BLMIS Ponzi scheme, but noted the Defendants must still prove they gave value for the surviving transfers.

BankruptcyPonzi SchemeFraudulent TransferSecurities Investor Protection ActWillful BlindnessPersonal JurisdictionLeave to AmendStatute of LimitationsSubsequent TransfereesInvestment Advisory
References
82
Case No. No. 07 Civ. 10470
Regular Panel Decision

In re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether

This case is a consolidated multi-district litigation concerning actual or threatened groundwater contamination caused by defendants' use of the gasoline additive methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) and its breakdown product, tertiary butyl alcohol. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico alleges that the defendants, including Shell Western Supply and Trading Limited and Shell International Petroleum Company Limited, have contaminated or threatened to contaminate groundwater within its jurisdiction. The defendants moved for partial summary judgment, arguing the Commonwealth's claims were time-barred. The court discusses the prospective application of Puerto Rico's statute of limitations tolling rules, specifically the Fraguada decision which overturned the Arroyo rule. The court ultimately denies the defendants' motion, concluding that the Commonwealth's claims are timely, as Fraguada ended the previous indefinite tolling period and restarted a one-year statute of limitations, within which the defendants were added.

MTBE contaminationGroundwater pollutionStatute of limitationsTolling rulesMulti-district litigationSummary judgmentPuerto Rico Civil CodeJoint and several liabilityProspective application of lawEnvironmental litigation
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Felder v. City of New York Traffic Law Department

The employer challenged a Workers' Compensation Board decision that discharged the Special Fund for Reopened Cases, arguing the Fund should be liable for an award because the case was reopened beyond the statutory three and seven-year limits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Board's decision, which affirmed a hearing officer's ruling, was based on a prior, timely application to reopen from August 1976 that revealed a material change in condition. Citing its continuing jurisdiction under Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and the timely nature of the initial application within § 25-a limits, the Board found its decision to discharge the Special Fund rational. The court affirmed this decision, clarifying that the seven-year limitation in § 123 applies only when a claim was initially disallowed or disposed of without an award.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesReopened CasesJurisdictionMaterial Change in ConditionStatutory LimitationsBoard DecisionEmployer ResponsibilityAffirmed DecisionAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. 88 Civ. 3723 (KC)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 1990

Belton v. US POSTAL SERV.(NE REGION AGENCY)

Plaintiff Robert Belton, a former postal worker, initiated this action alleging racial discrimination and discrimination based on physical handicap by the United States Postal Service (USPS) following his termination. The case involved a prior settlement agreement which Belton claimed the USPS did not uphold, leading to an appeal to the EEOC which was also denied. The central legal question for the court was whether the 30-day time limit for filing a federal employee discrimination claim under 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(c) is a jurisdictional requirement, preventing equitable tolling. Relying on Second Circuit precedent, the court concluded that this period is indeed jurisdictional. Consequently, as Belton failed to name the correct defendant (the Postmaster General) and provide timely notice within this non-waivable period, the court ruled it lacked subject matter jurisdiction and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationPhysical HandicapEmployment DiscriminationFederal EmployeeTitle VIIRehabilitation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionEquitable TollingSovereign Immunity
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 8,541 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