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

Abraham & Straus, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 30

Abraham & Straus (A&S) sought a preliminary injunction against defendant Local 30 to stop picketing and job actions concerning engineer and mechanic staffing at a new Roosevelt Field store. A&S argued these actions violated their collective bargaining agreement's no-strike and arbitration clauses. Local 30 contended the dispute was purely representational, not arbitrable, and that Boys Markets relief did not apply to picketing alone. The court found the dispute arbitrable due to the broad arbitration clause and the union's previous intent to arbitrate. It also determined that Boys Markets injunctions could cover picketing, especially when it caused work stoppages, ultimately granting A&S's request and ordering arbitration.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClausePicketingWork StoppageBoys Markets ExceptionLabor Management Relations ActFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
14
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
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
May 30, 2008

Laroque v. Domino's Pizza, LLC

The court addressed a lawsuit brought by former Domino's delivery drivers and customer service representatives alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York State Labor Law. Plaintiffs claimed that Domino's failed to fully compensate them for hours worked and denied overtime wages. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion for an extension of time to file additional affidavits. It also preliminarily approved collective action certification for employees at the Coney Island Store between May 30, 2005, and May 30, 2008, finding them to be similarly situated. However, the motion for certification was denied for employees at other Brooklyn Area Stores due to insufficient factual support. The court provided detailed instructions for amending the 'Notice of Lawsuit' and ordered Domino's to produce the names and addresses of potential class members.

FLSANew York State Labor LawCollective Action CertificationOvertime WagesUnpaid WagesOff-the-clock workPayroll RecordsDelivery DriversCustomer Service RepresentativesEquitable Inquiry
References
22
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 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. 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
Showing 1-10 of 1,840 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