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
Jul 14, 2005

Smith v. 21 West LLC Limited Liability Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied defendant Bravo’s motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss defendant 21 West’s cross claims for contribution and indemnification. Bravo failed to establish that the plaintiff was its employee or that it operated as a joint venture, thereby not barring 21 West’s cross claims under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, Bravo could not demonstrate insufficient control over the work to negate negligence liability, nor prove supervision over 21 West. The appellate court found that the parties’ conduct, including Bravo commencing work and obtaining an insurance certificate, manifested an intent to be bound by an unsigned contract. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously affirmed the denial of Bravo's summary judgment motion, upholding 21 West's cross claims.

Summary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawCross ClaimsContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationEmployee StatusJoint VentureNegligence Liability
References
4
Case No. 08-CV-3175 (JG)(JO)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2009

Century 21 Real Estate LLC v. Bercosa Corp.

Century 21 Real Estate LLC sued Bercosa Corp. and its owner Pedro Bernard for breach of contract and trademark infringement under the Lanham Act. The defendants failed to respond to the complaint, leading to a motion for default judgment. Magistrate Judge James Orenstein issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge John Gleeson adopted, finding the defendants liable. The court awarded Century 21 a total of $319,832.32 in monetary damages, including contract claims, statutory damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. Additionally, the defendants were permanently enjoined from using the Century 21 Marks and ordered to cooperate in an audit of Bercosa’s books and records.

Default JudgmentTrademark InfringementLanham ActBreach of ContractFranchise AgreementMonetary DamagesInjunctive ReliefAttorneys' FeesAudit OrderWillful Violation
References
66
Case No. 2015-232 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 2017

Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C. v. 21 Century Advantage Ins. Co.

In this action, Easy Care Acupuncture, P.C., acting as an assignee, sought to recover first-party no-fault benefits from 21 Century Advantage Ins. Co. The plaintiff appealed an order from the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The defendant successfully argued that it had fully paid the plaintiff for the services according to the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Appellate Term affirmed the order, finding that the defendant's proof was sufficient to establish proper mailing of the denial of claim form and the correct application of the workers' compensation fee schedule.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate TermFirst-Party BenefitsDenial of Claim FormInsurance DisputeAssigned BenefitsCivil CourtAcupuncture Services
References
1
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

In re the Claim of Ford

The claimant appealed decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denying Trade Adjustment Assistance (TAA) benefits. The initial February 8, 1999 decision was superseded by a May 21, 2001 decision, which the court reviewed. The court found that the Board's denial of further training was reasonable because the claimant had already received suitable paralegal training under Labor Law § 599. The claimant left her paralegal employment to continue law school, rather than finding permanent work in the field for which she was already trained. Consequently, the court affirmed the May 21, 2001 decision and dismissed the appeal from the April 5, 1999 decision as moot.

Trade Adjustment AssistanceTAA BenefitsUnemployment InsuranceEligibilityVocational TrainingParalegal TrainingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationFederal Trade Act
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02210
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Osorio v. Tvi Inc.

Claimant, a pricing clerk, filed for workers' compensation benefits alleging neck, back, and arm injuries from repetitive work for TVI Inc. The Workers' Compensation Board found she sustained a causally-related occupational disease and set the date of disablement as May 21, 2015, affirming a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision. The employer and its carrier appealed, contending the claim was time-barred and that claimant failed to provide timely notice of her occupational disease, arguing that earlier symptoms indicated an earlier knowledge of the work-related condition. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing the Board's broad discretion in setting the date of disablement. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that claimant did not know or should not have known her condition was work-related prior to the physician's diagnosis on May 21, 2015, thus confirming the timeliness of the claim and notice. The denial of the application for reconsideration and/or full Board review by the carrier was also affirmed, as no new evidence or material change in condition was demonstrated.

Occupational diseaseRepetitive stress injuryWorkers' compensation benefitsDate of disablementTimeliness of claimNotice of occupational diseaseCervical spine injuryShoulder impingementTendonitisAppellate review
References
13
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. 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 1,619 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