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

Field v. New York University

Plaintiff Walter Field, an employee of Exterior Erecting Services, Inc., sustained a crushing injury to his left hand while working on a mobile crane at a New York University renovation site. Field and his wife sued NYU, Corporate Interiors Contracting, Inc., Eastern Exterior Wall Systems, and Cranes, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The court granted summary judgment dismissing Field's complaint against NYU, Corp, and Eastern regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, finding the cited Industrial Code provisions either complied with or too general. The court denied motions to dismiss Cranes' third-party complaint against Eastern and Exterior, allowing Cranes to amend its complaint to allege 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Finally, the court denied summary judgment for NYU, Corp, and Eastern on their indemnification claims against Cranes, Inc. due to insufficient evidentiary support.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawIndustrial CodeSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawGrave InjuryMobile CraneOutriggerIndemnification
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saxby v. LPS Field Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Saxby was injured after falling off a roof while performing property repairs for his company, Finger Lakes Property Services, at a property in foreclosure owned by First Union Corporation. First Union had contracted LPS Field Services for property preservation, which subsequently subcontracted through several intermediaries, eventually leading to Saxby's company. Saxby sued LPS, alleging common law negligence and violations of New York Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, with the case removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. LPS moved to dismiss the complaint under Fed. R. Civ. Proc. 12(b)(6). The court granted the motion in part, dismissing the negligent hiring claim, but denied the motion with respect to the remaining common law negligence and Labor Law claims, and granted the plaintiff leave to amend his complaint to specify Industrial Code violations.

NegligenceLabor LawMotion to DismissConstruction AccidentProperty PreservationIndependent ContractorDuty of CareFederal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hyek v. Field Support Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Audra Hyek initiated an action against her former employer, Field Support Services, Inc. (FSSI), alleging gender discrimination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). FSSI moved for summary judgment, which the court reviewed under the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting framework. The court found that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of gender discrimination, specifically regarding disparate treatment in equipment, training, policy enforcement, or her termination compared to a male co-worker. Additionally, Plaintiff's hostile work environment claim was deemed abandoned due to her failure to address Defendant's arguments in opposition papers. Consequently, the court granted FSSI's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Plaintiff's claims.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINYSHRLSummary JudgmentDisparate TreatmentHostile Work EnvironmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretext
References
70
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayer v. Oil Field Systems Corp.

Elfriede Mayer sued Oil Field Systems Corp. (OFS) and Integrated Energy Inc. (Integrated) alleging securities and common law fraud. Mayer, a limited partner in Mark Energy Partnerships (MEP), claimed misallocation of Integrated stock and insufficient disclosure regarding its arbitrary $10/share valuation, which affected partnership payouts. She also asserted misleading statements about an underwriter and stock performance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Mayer was not deceived. The court found that Mayer had actual knowledge of the facts allegedly withheld, including the arbitrary stock valuation and the method of determining payout, through various disclosures provided by OFS and Integrated. Concluding that no deception occurred, a prerequisite for federal securities claims, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case, also declining jurisdiction over related state law claims.

Securities FraudCommon Law FraudLimited PartnershipStock ValuationSummary JudgmentMisallocation of SharesDisclosure RequirementsMaterial FactFiduciary DutyFederal Securities Laws
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Fields

Leroy Fields, having successfully completed probation for a misdemeanor conviction of cocaine possession, moved to expunge his criminal record, arguing it was a barrier to obtaining steady employment. He had lost his job at the United States Postal Service due to the conviction and subsequently struggled to secure full-time positions, being denied by companies like Greyhound and losing a job at New York Bus Service. Fields also contended that actions by the Postal Service, where a co-worker targeted him for drug purchases after his rehabilitation, were unfair, though he conceded it wasn't legal entrapment. The court, however, denied his motion, emphasizing that expungement is reserved for "extreme circumstances" such as mass arrests, harassment, misuse of records, or convictions based on unconstitutional statutes. The court found Fields' difficulties, while poignant, did not meet this high standard, particularly since his conviction was valid and unchallenged, distinguishing his case from precedents where expungement was granted.

Expungement of criminal recordMisdemeanor convictionCocaine possessionProbation completionEmployment barriersExtreme circumstances legal standardEquitable discretionRehabilitation effortsDrug addiction historyU.S. Postal Service employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2000

Fields v. New York State Office of Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities

Nathan Fields sued the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) and individuals Maureen McNamara and Trena Fontaine, alleging retaliatory race discrimination in employment. This action followed a previous lawsuit where a jury found no cause of action but did note adverse employment actions and an equal protection violation. Fields claimed retaliation through disciplinary actions and ultimately being laid off. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Fields failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation, specifically a causal link between his protected activity (the prior lawsuit) and any adverse employment actions. The court found that Fields did not present sufficient evidence to create a genuine issue of material fact on the causal connection and thus failed to establish a prima facie case. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

RetaliationRace DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 198342 U.S.C. Section 1985New York Human Rights LawPrima Facie CaseCausal Connection
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewer v. Village of Old Field

The plaintiffs, Aaron Brewer, Alex Stylianou, Rita Bowman, and William Walcott, filed a class-action lawsuit alleging that the Village of Old Field and its officials operated an illegal private police force, violating RICO and Section 1983. The defendants moved to dismiss the second amended complaint. The court dismissed claims against Justice La Vita due to judicial immunity, the Village of Old Field for municipal immunity, and other individual defendants in their official capacities or for insufficient involvement. However, the court denied dismissal for RICO Section 1962(c) and (d) claims, as well as state law claims for money had and received, against William H. Hall, Walter Rothschild, James Simons, and Cary Staller in their individual capacities. The plaintiffs were granted leave to file a third amended complaint.

RICO ActSection 1983Racketeering ActivityMail FraudWire FraudMotion to DismissJudicial ImmunityMunicipal LiabilityClass ActionPrivate Police Force
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Casey

This case concerns an appeal by the Commissioner of Labor against a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which determined that an independent contractor relationship existed between Lark-field Lottery and a claimant. The claimant, hired by Lark-field to deliver lottery supplies and collect checks, used his own vehicle and paid his own expenses, with compensation based on stops completed. The Board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's finding of an independent contractor relationship, thus denying unemployment benefits. The appellate court, however, reversed the Board's decision, citing its failure to explain why it reached a different conclusion than prior agency determinations involving similar facts, where an employer/employee relationship was found. The matter was remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings consistent with the court's decision.

Independent ContractorUnemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewRemandSubstantial EvidenceArbitrary and CapriciousDelivery ServicesLabor Disputes
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fields v. Fields

In this divorce action, the plaintiff husband sought to divest his wife of her equitable share of their marital residence, arguing it was his separate property despite their 31-year marriage and shared occupancy. The husband claimed his initial $30,000 down payment and his mother's co-ownership and management negated the wife's claim to the property's significant appreciation. The court disagreed, affirming the Special Referee's finding that the husband's half-interest was marital property, subject to equitable distribution under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (c), noting the wife's direct and indirect contributions to the property and the marriage. It held that market forces primarily accounted for the townhouse's appreciation and granted the husband credit for his separate property contribution. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the judgments, entitling the wife to 35% of the marital assets, including the townhouse's value.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertySeparate PropertyDivorceAsset DivisionProperty AppreciationNon-Economic ContributionsReal EstateHusband and WifeDown Payment Credit
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 83 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