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. 2020 NY Slip Op 06316
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 2020

People v. May

The case concerns an appeal by Nicholas A. May from a judgment convicting him of predatory sexual assault against a child and course of sexual conduct against a child in the second degree. The charges arose from allegations that May sexually abused an underage victim over several years. May challenged the verdict's legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence, the admissibility of expert testimony concerning child sexual abuse, and claims of ineffective assistance of counsel. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the County Court's judgment, finding sufficient evidence, appropriate expert testimony from a nurse practitioner and a licensed clinical social worker, and meaningful representation by trial counsel, despite the defense's arguments regarding the victim's credibility and lack of corroboration. The court noted that the issues raised by the defense were adequately explored during the trial.

Child sexual abusePredatory sexual assaultCourse of sexual conductExpert witness testimonyIneffective assistance of counselAppellate reviewJury verdictVictim credibilityChild abuse accommodation syndromeCriminal law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayes v. Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers

The case involves plaintiff George A. Mayes suing Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers, and its officers for alleged discrimination in job referrals and denial of rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The defendants counterclaimed, seeking expenses incurred from Mayes' "baseless charges" against union members James Tommaney and Dan Lewis, citing violations of the Union's constitution and state law tort and breach of contract claims. Mayes moved for summary judgment, arguing good faith in filing charges under LMRDA and lack of court jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The court found material factual disputes regarding Mayes' motives, asserting jurisdiction over the counterclaims under 29 U.S.C. § 185. It also determined that the tort and breach of contract claims were sufficiently pleaded, thereby denying Mayes' motion for summary judgment and allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

Labour LawUnion DisputeSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsLMRDAFree SpeechUnion ConstitutionJurisdictionTort ClaimsBreach of Contract
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Prescott v. Town of Lake Luzerne

A claimant fell off a dump truck at work in February 2008, landing on his right buttock and injuring his hip. The injury led to surgery in May 2008 to remove heterotopic bone and subsequent two-stage hip replacement revision surgeries in November 2008 and February 2009 due to an infection. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the initial surgery and subsequent revisions causally related to the work fall and supported compensation awards. The employer appealed, arguing that an independent medical examination (IME) was improperly precluded and that the initial surgery lacked proper authorization. The Appellate Division affirmed the preclusion of the IME due to untimeliness and upheld the causal relationship findings for the injury and subsequent surgeries. However, the court reversed the Board's determination that the May 2008 surgery was properly authorized, remitting that specific issue for further proceedings, while affirming all other appealed decisions.

Causal RelationshipIndependent Medical Examination (IME)Evidence PreclusionSurgery AuthorizationHip InjuryHeterotopic OssificationMedical Opinion ConflictDue ProcessRemittiturEmployer Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union of Needletrades, Industrial & Textile Employees v. May Department Stores Co.

The plaintiffs, Union of Needle-trades, Industrial and Textile Workers (UNITE) and others, sued May Department Stores Company (May) alleging violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC rules related to proxy solicitations. UNITE sought relief claiming May improperly exercised discretionary voting authority and made false or misleading statements in its proxy materials concerning an 'anti-poison pill proposal'. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim and failure to plead fraud with particularity. The court granted May's motion, concluding that May lawfully exercised its discretionary authority under SEC Rule 14a-4(c)(1) and that UNITE failed to allege any actionable false or misleading statements under SEC Rule 14a-9. The complaint was dismissed.

Securities LawProxy SolicitationShareholder RightsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Discretionary AuthorityMisleading StatementsSecurities Exchange ActSEC Rules
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

J. W. Mays, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

J. W. Mays, Inc. initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a previous order by the State Division of Human Rights. The original orders sustained a complaint against J. W. Mays, Inc. for sex discrimination and imposed a penalty. The State Division of Human Rights also cross-moved for enforcement of its order. The court found that J. W. Mays, Inc. failed to demonstrate a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for transferring a female salesperson out of a department where all other salespersons were male. The court affirmed the prior order, dismissed J. W. Mays, Inc.'s proceeding, and granted the State Division's cross-application for enforcement, concluding that the transfer was based on sex discrimination.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment LawGender BiasWorkplace TransferHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofPrima Facie CaseUnlawful Discrimination
References
1
Case No. ADJ6736069 ADJ6736155 ADJ7147776
Regular
Jul 07, 2010

YVETTE WHITMER vs. HI SHEAR CORPORATION, ZURICH NORTH AMERICA, GOLDEN STATE FOODS, LIBERTY MUTUAL, SANTA BARBARA APPLIED RESEARCH

This case involves Yvette Whitmer's claims for back injuries allegedly sustained on May 1, 2008, and June 13, 2008. The defendant, Hi Shear Corporation, sought reconsideration of the initial findings, arguing the claims were non-compensable post-termination claims under Labor Code section 3600(a)(10). The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that Whitmer failed to provide timely notice of her injuries to the employer prior to her termination on June 23, 2008. Consequently, her claims were barred, and she was awarded no benefits.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimscompensable industrial injuriesWCJreconsiderationFindings of Factregional managerZurich North AmericaLiberty Mutualarising out of and in the course of employment
References
4
Case No. 78107628
Regular Panel Decision

Stojanov v. Eastman Kodak Co.

Claimant appealed two decisions by the Workers' Compensation Board, filed July 10, 2008, which ruled that his applications for review were untimely. These claims stemmed from 1981 work-related accidents, reopened in 2008 with liability transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge denied compensation in May 2008, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 123. The Board found claimant's applications for review, mailed on the 30th day but received later, were untimely. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s decision, emphasizing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 requires filing within 30 days, not just mailing.

timelinessSpecial FundBoard reviewappealWCLJ decisionfiling deadlinemailed applicationamended decisionstatutory interpretationadministrative review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Canfora v. Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.

Claimant suffered a work-related injury on May 2, 2001, and was awarded workers' compensation benefits. On May 29, 2008, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested that liability be transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 25-a. The Workers’ Compensation Board transferred liability to the Special Fund effective May 30, 2006, which was two years prior to the date of the carrier’s application but within seven years of the injury date. The Special Fund appealed this decision, arguing that the transfer was precluded by Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, which requires both seven years from injury and three years from the last payment of compensation to have expired before liability can shift to the Special Fund. The appellate court found that the Board departed from its own precedent by allowing a retroactive transfer into the seven-year period without providing a rational explanation. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferRetroactive ApplicationStatutory InterpretationAdministrative LawWorkers’ Compensation Law § 25-aAppellate ReviewBoard PrecedentArbitrary and Capricious
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2008

Grossman v. Ilowitz

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 22, 2008. The appellants, Raphael Grossman and Israel Grossman, challenged an arbitration award from August 4, 2005, which awarded Israel Grossman $500,000 from Yaakov Aaron Ilowitz and Israel Chaim Ilowitz, and an arbitration award dated May 29, 2007, which vacated the $500,000 award due to a violation of an injunction. The Supreme Court had granted the motion of Yaakov Aaron Ilowitz and Israel Chaim Ilowitz to vacate an earlier order and judgment confirming the initial arbitration award and denied the appellants' motion to compel compliance. The court also granted the motion to confirm the May 29, 2007, arbitration award and denied the appellants' motion to vacate it. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers in granting injunctive relief or in enforcing it, which led to the forfeiture of the monetary award. The court also found that the Supreme Court properly vacated the initial order and judgment confirming the monetary award.

Arbitration AwardInjunctive ReliefVacated AwardMonetary AwardAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 75Arbitrator PowersPublic Policy ExceptionArbitration AgreementKings County Supreme Court
References
7
Case No. ADJ4599548 (MON 0212034) ADJ1776170 (MON 0224335) ADJ1414058 (MON 0246016)
Regular
Nov 19, 2008

KRISTIAN VON RITZHOFF vs. OGDEN ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed applicant Kristian Von Ritzhoff's petitions for reconsideration because they sought review of procedural matters, not final decisions, and were therefore not subject to reconsideration. The Board also noted that one of the petitions was untimely. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings where applicant may raise issues regarding the record and discovery.

Petition for reconsiderationWCJMinutes of Hearingfraud on the courttampering with evidencemandatory settlement conferencediscovery closureReport and Recommendationunverified petitionsprocedural order
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,799 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