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
May 16, 2003

Claim of Isaacs v. Fleet Financial Services

Claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision from May 16, 2003, which deemed her application for review untimely. The claimant's initial workers' compensation claim for a compensable back injury was established in 1999, with an average weekly wage set at $258. After the case was reopened in 2000 for further medical treatment and then closed in 2001, claimant sought an explanation for her average weekly wage calculation in March 2003, over three years after the initial decision became final. Her subsequent formal application for Board review of the 1999 administrative decision was denied as untimely because it was filed more than 30 days after the initial decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 313.3 [c] and Workers’ Compensation Law § 23. The court affirmed the Board’s discretionary decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the significant delay and lack of evidence demonstrating erroneous wage computation.

Workers' CompensationAppealTimeliness of ApplicationAdministrative ReviewAverage Weekly WageBoard DiscretionNew York Labor LawJudicial ReviewProcedural IssuesStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Oliva v. Albany Cycle Co.

This case concerns a claimant's appeal from two decisions by the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed May 6, 1977, and June 29, 1978, which had denied his application to reopen and reconsider a referee’s decision from March 25, 1976. The referee had previously denied the claimant’s claim for death benefits for his deceased wife, stating that he failed to establish dependency as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 16. The claimant sought reopening after Matter of Passante v Walden Print. Co. declared section 16 unconstitutional for its gender-based dependency requirements. However, the Board rejected the application due to an untimely appeal. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion as Passante did not expressly mandate retroactive application.

Death BenefitsDependency RequirementConstitutional LawRetroactive ApplicationTimely AppealAbuse of DiscretionBoard ReconsiderationReferee's DecisionAppellate ReviewGender Discrimination
References
3
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. 16-CV-3812, 16-CV-5302
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Lighton Indus., Inc. v. Allied World Nat'l Assurance Co.

This case involves consolidated actions by Lighton Industries, Inc. and Hibuild Limited Liability Company against Allied World National Assurance Company and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment regarding the insurers' duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying personal injury action, the Tunkara Action, stemming from an August 16, 2014 accident at Brooklyn College. The court granted Lighton and Hibuild's motions for summary judgment, determining that Allied and Mt. Hawley owe a duty to defend the plaintiffs in the Tunkara Action. This decision was based on ambiguities in the insurance policies' Classification Limitation and Designated Ongoing Operations Exclusion, which were construed against the insurers. However, all motions for summary judgment concerning indemnification were denied, and these claims were dismissed without prejudice as premature, as liability in the underlying Tunkara Action had not yet been determined.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityPolicy ExclusionClassification LimitationOngoing Operations ExclusionSubcontractor Liability
References
73
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. ADJ2497883 (SFO 0450940) ADJ3261393 (SFO 0504693)
Regular
Apr 30, 2010

JANETTE HARDIN vs. COUNTY OF ALAMEDA, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, CHARTIS INSURANCE, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves Chartis Insurance seeking reconsideration of an arbitrator's decision setting the date of cumulative trauma injury for Janette Hardin's breast cancer as May 28, 1997, not the previously stipulated date of May 16, 2001. Chartis argued the stipulated date was res judicata and could not be altered, especially in a contribution proceeding. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, affirming that contribution proceedings allow for a relitigation of liability and the determination of the true date of injury based on facts, not prior stipulations between the applicant and one defendant. The Board reasoned that findings of liability in the primary case are not binding in supplemental contribution proceedings.

Cumulative traumaDate of injuryContribution proceedingsRes judicataStipulated awardLabor Code section 5500.5Apportionment of liabilityCase-in-chiefSupplemental proceedingsGreenwald v. Carey Distribution Company
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,631 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