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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Roa v. King Gene Cab Corp.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal without costs, determining that while the appellant's standing in the workers' compensation proceeding is an issue for the appeal itself, the appellant clearly possesses standing to appeal the board's decision which denied its motion to reopen. This decision ensures the appeal process can continue to address the substantive issues, including the appellant's participation rights.

Motion to DismissAppealStandingWorkers' CompensationMotion to ReopenBoard DecisionProcedural
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1954

Peters v. New York City Housing Authority

The court granted the motion concerning the continued occupancy rights of the tenants. This decision affects the ongoing residency of individuals currently living in the property. Furthermore, an associated appeal has been formally scheduled to be heard and argued before the Court of Appeals. This hearing is slated to occur during its session in May of 1954.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Engstrum & Nourse-Stolte v. E.C. Ernst, Inc. (In re E.C. Ernst, Inc.)

E.C. Ernst, Inc. (Ernst), a debtor-in-possession in a Chapter XI bankruptcy proceeding, entered into a subcontract with Engstrom & Nourse-Stolte (ENS) for electrical work. After Ernst filed for bankruptcy, a Supplemental Agreement allowed Ernst to continue the project. ENS later filed a Proof of Claim for expenses, which Ernst moved to expunge or allow only as a general unsecured claim. Both parties filed cross-motions for summary judgment regarding the priority of ENS's claim and the interpretation of their agreements. Additionally, Ernst sought to expunge ENS's claim for failure to produce documents. The court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing disputes over the intent behind the Supplemental Agreement and potential breach of contract, and directed ENS to comply with document production.

Bankruptcy ActChapter XI ReorganizationExecutory ContractsSummary JudgmentDebtor-in-PossessionSubcontract AgreementProof of ClaimPriority ClaimContract InterpretationDocument Production
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pre' Catelan, Inc. v. International Federation of Workers

The plaintiff, a restaurant business operating an 'open shop' called Pre’ Catelan, sought an injunction against striking workers and their union. The strike, initiated without warning, involved picketing and alleged acts of violence, intimidation, and assault against employees and patrons, resulting in severe injuries to some workers. The defendants denied these charges, claiming peaceful picketing and attributing any disturbances to strangers, arguing the strike was due to the plaintiff's intention to destroy the union. The court, citing established principles regarding lawful picketing and the protection of workers' rights, found that the presented proof established aggravated assaults and threats. Consequently, the motion to continue the injunction pendente lite was granted.

StrikePicketingInjunctionLabor DisputeViolenceIntimidationAssaultThreatsOpen ShopClosed Shop
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Plaza Mission Bottling Co., Inc.

Andrew Schnier, the trustee in a bankruptcy case, filed a motion seeking to reduce claims by the Soft Drink Workers Union, Local 812 BT. The trustee argued that the bankrupt entity, Plaza Mission Bottling Co., Inc., was not bound by a collective bargaining agreement negotiated by its predecessor, Plaza Beverage Company. The court conferred successor status upon the bankrupt, finding substantial continuity in the business enterprise, workforce, and equipment. Crucially, the court determined that the bankrupt had implicitly assumed the collective bargaining agreement through the statements and actions of its president, who continued to honor its terms. Therefore, the court denied the trustee's motion, concluding that the bankrupt was legally bound to the substantive provisions of the collective bargaining agreement.

Bankruptcy ActSuccessor EmployerCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActAlter Ego DoctrineUnion ClaimsUnpaid WagesSick PayVacation Pay
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ofudu v. Barr Laboratories, Inc.

Plaintiff Agawukwu Ofudu filed an action against his former employer, Barr Laboratories, Inc., alleging race discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The defendant moved to strike portions of the plaintiff's statement of facts and for summary judgment. The court granted the defendant's motion to strike in part and granted the motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The decision highlighted the plaintiff's failure to provide sufficient evidentiary support for his claims, with many statements deemed conclusory and not consonant with the record. The court also addressed the continuing violations doctrine, disfavoring its application in this circuit, and dismissed claims that were time-barred or not specified in the EEOC charge, such as retaliation and national origin discrimination. Ultimately, the court found a complete absence of proof on the plaintiff's part to establish discriminatory motive.

Race DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentMotion to StrikePrima Facie CaseContinuing Violations DoctrineEEOC ChargeBurden-ShiftingEmployment Law
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zajac v. Wilson

Plaintiffs, led by James Zajac, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment dismissing their complaint. The action sought damages for alleged medical malpractice and negligence by Dr. E. Robert Wilson during a series of independent medical examinations (IMEs). The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the remaining medical malpractice cause of action was time-barred. Defendants successfully demonstrated that the action was commenced beyond the 2½-year statute of limitations, and plaintiffs failed to establish the applicability of the continuous treatment doctrine, as Dr. Wilson conducted IMEs for workers' compensation purposes and did not provide continuous treatment for Zajac's injuries. The court also upheld the trial court's discretion in entertaining the defendants' delayed motion for summary judgment.

Medical MalpracticeNegligenceSummary JudgmentIndependent Medical ExaminationStatute of LimitationsContinuous Treatment DoctrineWorkers' CompensationAppellate DivisionTime-barredGood Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graaf v. North Shore University Hospital

Plaintiff Stanley V. Graaf sued his former employer, North Shore University Hospital, and individual defendants, alleging discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and disability. The claims were brought under Title VII, ADA, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986, and various state law claims including negligence, breach of employment contract, and fraud, as well as the New York State Human Rights Law. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss for the ADA claim, the 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981, 1985, 1986 claims, and the state law claims of negligence, breach of contract, and fraud, largely due to temporary disability, untimeliness, or insufficient pleading. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss the Title VII claim, applying the 'continuing violation' doctrine, and also denied the motion to dismiss the New York State Human Rights Law claim against defendant John Gallagher, citing his role as CEO and president.

DiscriminationEmployment LawTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities ActCivil Rights ActMotion to DismissContinuing Violation DoctrineHostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationNational Origin Discrimination
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 10,938 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