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. 2025 NY Slip Op 25024
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 29, 2025

Matter of W.S. v. G.S.

The petitioner (W.S.) filed a family offense petition against the respondent (G.S.), his sister, alleging harassment in the second degree. W.S. claimed G.S. threatened 'further consequences' and made false statements in a Mental Hygiene Law article 9 petition, leading to W.S.'s arrest. G.S. argued her statements were privileged and made due to genuine fear and concerns about W.S.'s mental health and hoarding. The court held that communications made in support of a Mental Hygiene Law petition are subject to a qualified privilege and serve a 'legitimate purpose' unless made with knowing/reckless disregard of falsity and solely to alarm/annoy. The court found W.S. failed to prove G.S.'s statements met this higher standard or that her other alleged actions constituted harassment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Family OffenseHarassment Second DegreeMental Hygiene Law Article 9Qualified PrivilegeLegitimate Purpose DefenseIntent to HarassBurden of ProofCredibility of WitnessesStatements to PoliceMalice Standard
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U. S. Pillow Corp. v. McLeod

The U. S. Pillow Corporation (plaintiff) initiated legal action to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election involving its employees, as petitioned by Local 140. Although the election proceeded, the ballots were impounded. The court considered three motions: Local 140's request for intervention, U. S. Pillow's plea for an injunction to continue ballot impoundment, and the Regional Director's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted Local 140's intervention. The core of U. S. Pillow's argument centered on alleged violations of its constitutional rights and administrative due process by the NLRB's decision to permit a single-employer unit election despite existing multi-employer agreements. The court, however, deemed the plaintiff's constitutional claims to be "transparently frivolous" and found no merit in any of its contentions. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's request for an injunction pendente lite was denied.

Labor RelationsNLRBRepresentation ElectionJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingMulti-employer UnitConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFirst Amendment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2012

Penaranda v. 4933 Realty, LLC

Plaintiff, an employee of K&S Construction, sustained injuries after being thrown from a Bobcat within a warehouse owned by the defendant landlord. The incident occurred while the plaintiff was removing plywood, an activity he claimed was necessary for a concrete curb construction project. The central legal issue was whether the plaintiff's plywood removal qualified as construction work under the Labor Law, entitling him to its protections. The court found a question of fact regarding whether the work was "necessary and incidental" to the construction. Consequently, the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was reinstated, and the third-party complaint for contractual indemnity against K&S Construction was also reinstated, while other aspects of the lower court's decision were affirmed.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintIndemnityBobcat AccidentGravity-Related EventCounterweightAppellate ReviewQuestion of Fact
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01069 [158 AD3d 703]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 14, 2018

Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)

The case "Matter of Bella S. (Sarah S.)" involves an appeal from a Family Court order that found Sarah S. (mother) neglected her child, Bella S. The Administration for Children's Services had petitioned, alleging the mother's untreated bipolar disorder and other mental illnesses put the child at risk. The Family Court agreed, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this finding. The Appellate Division concluded that the petitioner failed to prove inadequate treatment or imminent harm, noting the mother's consistent efforts in seeking housing, prenatal care, methadone treatment, and psychiatric medication. Consequently, the petition against the mother was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Child NeglectParental RightsMental IllnessBipolar DisorderAdequate TreatmentAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofImminent DangerFamily Court ActKings County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Indagro S.A. v. Bauche S.A.

Indagro S.A. initiated a maritime attachment action against Bauche S.A. to recover demurrage payments allegedly due under a fertilizer sale contract. Indagro claimed to have fulfilled its obligations, but Bauche failed to pay demurrage. Indagro obtained an ex parte Rule B Order, resulting in $804,219.90 of Bauche's funds being restrained. Bauche moved to vacate this order, arguing the contract was not maritime in nature and Indagro's claim was merely a contingent indemnity. The court, presided over by Judge Paul G. Gardephe, ruled that Indagro failed to demonstrate a valid prima facie maritime claim, asserting that the sales contract's primary objective was non-maritime, and the "demurrage" provision was likely a contingent indemnity not yet ripe. Consequently, Bauche's motion to vacate was granted, the Rule B Order was vacated, and the verified complaint was dismissed.

Maritime attachmentRule B OrderDemurrageContract disputeAdmiralty jurisdictionSeverable maritime obligationContingent indemnity claimEnglish lawVacatur of attachmentSale of goods
References
52
Case No. ADJ4265919
Regular
Mar 02, 2009

F. GAITAN vs. K&S FARMS, COMP WEST INSURANCE

This case involves an applicant who sustained an industrial injury and was subsequently terminated by his employer, K&S Farms, while on temporary disability. The applicant filed a claim alleging discrimination under Labor Code section 132a, arguing the termination was a penalty for his injury. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the employer's petition for reconsideration, rescinded the prior award, and found no violation of section 132a. The Board determined the applicant failed to establish a prima facie case that his termination was "because of" his industrial injury, as required by law.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationprima facie caseindustrial injurydetrimentdisparate treatmenteconomic justificationbusiness necessitytemporary disabilityreinstatement
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03346 [205 AD3d 573]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

Lopez v. Halletts Astoria LLC

Plaintiff, an S&E employee, was injured at a construction site while fixing a misaligned hoist elevator when an adjacent ascending hoist elevator struck his foot. The Supreme Court initially denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and specific Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, and granted plaintiff summary judgment on those claims. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It granted defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim predicated on Industrial Code § 23-6.1 (c) (1) and denied plaintiff summary judgment on the Labor Law § 200, common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 241 (6) (Industrial Code § 23-6.3 (g)) claims. The court found issues of fact regarding whether permitting concurrent hoist operation was a proximate cause of the injury and whether defendant New Line Structures & Development LLC had the authority to control the activity. The decision also affirmed the severance of the third-party action due to inexcusable delay.

Construction accidentHoist elevator injuryPersonal injuryLabor Law claimsIndustrial Code violationsProximate causeSummary judgmentThird-party liabilityAppellate reviewForeseeability of risk
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pardo v. Bialystoker Center & Bikur Cholim, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, New York County. The first order, dated September 12, 2002, and the second, dated February 27, 2003, had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and precluded him from asserting Labor Law claims at trial concerning the alleged failure of defendants to secure a scaffold with "tie-ins." The appellate court modified the lower court's orders, vacating the provisions that barred the plaintiff from offering evidence regarding the defendants' alleged failure to use tie-ins. The court affirmed the orders in all other respects. It emphasized that under Labor Law § 240 (1), a plaintiff only needs to demonstrate that injuries were partially attributable to the defendant's failure to implement statutorily mandated safety measures to protect against elevation-related risks. The court also clarified that contributory negligence is irrelevant in such cases. The plaintiff's belated request to plead a violation of Industrial Code § 23-5.8 (g) was denied due to an unequivocal waiver of his Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action.

Labor LawScaffold SafetySummary JudgmentElevation HazardsProximate CauseContributory NegligenceTie-insWorkplace AccidentStatutory Safety MeasuresAppellate Decision
References
7
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
Showing 1-10 of 11,224 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