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. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Grief Bros.

This employment discrimination case, filed July 1, 2002, involves Michael Sabo (Plaintiff) who alleges constructive discharge based on sexual harassment and claims severe emotional pain and suffering. The Defendant moved for a mental examination of Sabo under Fed.R.Civ.P. 35 and to compel the production of his medical records. Sabo alleged severe humiliation, anxiety, depression, loss of self-esteem, sleeplessness, and weight gain, and admitted to a history of depression, past suicide attempts, and current psychiatric treatment with prescribed medications. The court granted the Defendant's motions, finding that Sabo had placed his mental condition in controversy due to the nature and severity of his claims and his medical history, justifying both the examination and the production of relevant medical records. The court also granted Defendant's request for costs associated with compelling the medical records, but denied the request for costs related to the Rule 35 motion itself, and denied Plaintiff's request for counsel or recording during the examination.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentConstructive DischargeEmotional DistressMental ExaminationRule 35Medical RecordsDepressionSuicide AttemptsCompensatory Damages
References
11
Case No. 772 F.Supp. 1412
Regular Panel Decision

Association of Surrogates & Supreme Court Reporters v. New York

Defendant Crosson moved for an order clarifying an August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment, which implemented a Second Circuit mandate declaring New York's lag-payroll law unconstitutional. Crosson argued that the Judgment enjoined the law's application to both unrepresented and represented employees, while State Defendants maintained it covered only represented employees. The Court acknowledged the Second Circuit's focus on represented employees due to contractual impairment but clarified its own Order and Judgment to include all employees, finding the lag-payroll statute non-severable. The Court reasoned that severing the statute to apply only to unrepresented employees would significantly alter the original legislative intent, reducing the expected savings by 90%. Consequently, the Court granted Crosson's motion, clarifying that the August 29, 1991 Order and Judgment applies to both unrepresented and represented employees.

Lag Payroll LawContract ClauseUnited States ConstitutionSecond Circuit MandateDeclaratory JudgmentRestitution of WagesSeverability of StatuteLegislative IntentUnrepresented EmployeesRepresented Employees
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nelson v. Biderman

The petitioner moved for a warrant under CPLR 2308(b) to commit the respondent to jail for refusing to be sworn as a witness and produce requested books and records in a pending arbitration proceeding. The respondent had previously unsuccessfully moved to set aside the arbitrator's subpoenas, and the petitioner's cross-motion to compel compliance was granted. An appeal by the respondent for a stay was denied by the Appellate Division. The respondent persisted in his refusal before the arbitrator, leading to the current motion. The respondent argued, for the first time, that only the 'issuer' of the subpoena, the arbitrator, could move for relief under CPLR 2308(b), collaterally attacking the prior order. The court rejected this argument, interpreting 'issuer' to include the party on whose application the subpoena was issued in a non-judicial proceeding, and found it impractical to limit the remedy to the official. The motion was granted.

ArbitrationSubpoena enforcementCPLR 2308(b)CPLR 2302(a)Contempt of courtWitness refusalDocument productionCollateral attackJudicial interpretationMotion to compel
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hetzler v. Record/Information Dissemination Section, Federal Bureau of Investigation

This case involves a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request by pro se plaintiff Déirdre McKiernan Hetzler seeking records from the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) concerning her father. The FBI released some documents, redacted others, and withheld some entirely, citing various FOIA exemptions including national security, internal agency rules, and protection of confidential sources and third-party privacy. Plaintiff challenged the breadth of these redactions. The Court conducted an in camera review of the withheld documents and, after evaluating the asserted exemptions, granted in part and denied in part both the defendants' motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff's cross-motion, ordering the FBI to re-process and re-release certain documents where redactions were deemed unjustified.

FOIANational SecurityClassified InformationRedactionSummary JudgmentPrivacy InterestsConfidential SourcesFBIGovernment RecordsDeclassified Documents
References
30
Case No. ADJ7587936
Regular
Oct 16, 2012

KAREN GODDARD vs. MARIE CALLENDER'S, ESIS, INC. C/O ACE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration. They granted removal on their own motion, rescinded the WCJ's order striking the PQME's report, and returned the matter for further development of the record. This action was taken because the record was unclear as to who performed diagnostic testing, potentially violating Labor Code section 4628. The Board directed parties to first obtain a supplemental report from the PQME to clarify this issue.

WCABPQMEAMEIMELabor Code 4628Nerve Conduction StudyMedical Record DevelopmentPetition for ReconsiderationRemovalFindings Order Opinion
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Russo v. Hardy

The Monroe County Department of Social Services, as petitioner in a paternity case against 'X' concerning a child born to 'Y', filed a motion to quash a subpoena duces tecum. The subpoena sought records related to assistance given to 'Y' and her statements about the child's parentage. The Department argued confidentiality under Social Services Law and CPLR. The court, presided by Judge Joseph T. Pilato, denied the motion, ruling that such records are not uniformly confidential and that special circumstances exist, especially given the infant's rights and the necessity of all available evidence for a paternity determination. The court ordered disclosure of relevant records to the respondent, limited to conversations between the petitioner and the caseworker.

paternity casesubpoena duces tecumconfidentialitysocial services recordsspecial circumstancesfiliation proceedingdisclosureinfant's rightsFamily CourtCPLR
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Handicapped Child

The Orchard Park Central School District (District) sought a court-ordered subpoena for psychiatric and psychological records of an infant student from the Western New York Children’s Psychiatric Center. The District intended to use these records in an appeal initiated by the student's parents concerning the child's handicapping condition. The parents cross-moved to quash the subpoena, asserting the records were privileged and their consent for release had been withdrawn. Justice Thomas P. Flaherty ruled that no legislative exception existed to abrogate the physician-patient and psychologist-client privileges in this context, especially over parental objection. Consequently, the court denied the District's motion for the subpoena and granted the parents' cross-motion to quash, underscoring the protection of confidential communications in a child's best interests.

Education LawStudent RecordsPsychiatric RecordsPsychological RecordsPrivilegeSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to QuashParental RightsCommittee on HandicappedFair Hearing
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Constance B. v. Joan M.

This case involves a motion to quash a judicial subpoena duces tecum issued by respondent Joan M. The subpoena sought all records pertaining to Sonya M. from Under 21, a private, not-for-profit corporation serving runaway and homeless youths. The underlying matter is a petition where Sonya M.'s mother and her paramour, Robert B., are charged with child abuse and neglect. The court determined that the information sought was irrelevant to the neglect proceeding, deeming it a "fishing expedition." Crucially, the court found that Under 21 is legally prohibited from disclosing such information due to the confidentiality provisions of the Runaway and Homeless Youth Act of 1978 (Executive Law, art 19-H, § 532 et seq.) and its implementing regulations (9 NYCRR 182.1 et seq.). The court emphasized the legislative intent to protect the confidentiality of runaway youth records, noting that the Family Court Act § 1046's exceptions to privilege do not extend to runaway home records. The court granted the motion to quash, affirming that the cloak of confidentiality for runaway homes shall not be broken without the youth's written consent.

ConfidentialityRunaway and Homeless Youth ActSubpoena Duces TecumChild Abuse and NeglectFamily LawStatutory InterpretationDisclosure of RecordsYouth ServicesConfidential CommunicationsLegislative Intent
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 14,730 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