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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. ADJ9356348
Regular
Jul 03, 2018

ALEJANDRO GONZALEZ vs. JAGUAR ENTERPRISES, INC., CALIFORNIA INSURANCE, APPLIED RISK SERVICES, INC., SOUTHERN INSURANCE, CONDOR, INC., WESTCO INSURANCE, AMTRUST INSURANCE, INDEMNITY INSURANCE COMPANY OF NORTH AMERICA, ESIS, SOUTHERN INSURANCE, U.S. ADMINISTRATOR CLAIMS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE, OLD REPUBLIC INSURANCE, ZURICH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves determining the applicant's date of injury for an occupational disease. Initially, the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) determined the date of injury to be December 13, 2013, based on medical records suggesting work-related causation. However, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration, finding that the applicant credibly testified that his physician first linked his condition to his employment on May 13, 2013. Therefore, the Board amended the findings to establish May 13, 2013, as the date of injury pursuant to Labor Code section 5412.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDate of InjuryPetition for ReconsiderationWCJ ReportMedical EvidencePneumoniaBronchitisPulmonary FibrosisHypersensitivity PneumonitisBOOP
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
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
Mar 25, 2009

Claim of DeFayette v. Verizon

The claimant suffered a compensable left shoulder injury in May 2002, and later a right shoulder injury in December 2005. The claimant was initially awarded workers' compensation benefits for intermittent lost time from May 17, 2002, to November 18, 2003, and later from September 13, 2007, to November 5, 2008. However, awards for lost time between November 18, 2003, and September 13, 2007, were denied by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge, a decision that was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's decision, finding that the determination lacked substantial evidence as no prior Board determinations on this specific issue were found in the record. The matter was remitted to the Board for further fact-finding to resolve the issue.

Workers' CompensationLost Time AwardsShoulder InjuryAppealBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceFact-FindingRemittalPrior DeterminationsBenefit Payments
References
5
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Saczawa v. United Parcel Service

Claimant was injured in 1982 and received workers' compensation benefits until 1984. The Workers’ Compensation Board initially closed the case in 1985, finding no further causally related disability. The case was reopened in 1989 due to a medical form indicating a change in condition, and benefits were awarded from May 1989 onwards. Following further proceedings, the Board awarded claimant benefits for the period between February 1984 and May 1989 in a decision filed January 13, 1995. Claimant's subsequent application for reconsideration was denied by the Board on May 17, 1995. The appellate court affirmed the denial of reconsideration, citing the claimant's failure to timely appeal the January 1995 decision and noting that the Board did not abuse its discretion as no new information was presented.

Workers' CompensationDisability BenefitsReconsideration DenialAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousTimeliness of AppealMedical Condition ChangeBoard DecisionNew York Law
References
7
Case No. ADJ888335 (MON 0330155)
Regular
Jan 14, 2013

ROY MAYES vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Pasadena's petition for reconsideration of a finding that they violated Labor Code section 132a by discriminating against Roy Mayes. The Board found that Mayes' termination shortly after returning from a work-related injury, despite a prior evaluation indicating he met job requirements, constituted evidence of being singled out. Despite the employer's claim of poor performance, the Board deferred to the judge's credibility findings, which found the employer's evidence inconsistent. Therefore, the employer's petition for reconsideration was denied.

Labor Code section 132adiscriminationprobationpoor performanceFindings of FactPetition for ReconsiderationReport and Recommendationprima facie caseaffirmative defenseindustrial injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,737 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