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
Aug 25, 1993

Meadows v. State University of New York at Oswego

Plaintiffs Ms. Meadows and Ms. Smouse, employees at SUNY Oswego, sought a preliminary injunction against the university and several individuals, alleging harassment and retaliation. Their claims stemmed from perceived involvement in a Title IX complaint, which they contended led to Ms. Smouse's non-renewal and pressure on Ms. Meadows. Plaintiffs argued these actions created a "chilling effect" on their First Amendment rights. The court, presided over by District Judge SCULLIN, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, concluding that an interim injunction would not alleviate the alleged "chill" arising from the threat of permanent discharge, nor did Ms. Meadows's asserted harassment meet the irreparable harm standard.

Preliminary InjunctionFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechRetaliationHarassmentTitle IXEmployment DiscriminationChilling EffectIrreparable HarmPublic Employees Fair Employment Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Rose B.

The Ulster County Commissioner of Social Services appealed an order from the Family Court of Ulster County that dismissed a petition alleging a child, Rose R., was abused and neglected by her father. The appeal stemmed from observations by school staff of numerous injuries on Rose R., which she attributed to beatings. Initially, the Family Court found insufficient evidence. The appellate court, however, reversed the decision regarding neglect, finding that the Commissioner had established by a preponderance of credible evidence that Rose R.'s physical and emotional condition was impaired due to the father's unreasonable infliction of harm and failure to provide minimum care. The matter was remitted to Family Court for a dispositional hearing.

Child AbuseChild NeglectFamily LawAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofPreponderance of EvidencePhysical HarmEmotional ImpairmentParental CareChild Protection
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. A. Servidone, Inc.

Robert Rose, an employee of Orange and Rockland Utilities, was injured on August 21, 1995, while stepping off a truck onto uneven ground at a construction site. He and his wife, Lenora Rose, sued A. Servidone, Inc., the general contractor, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241 (6), along with common-law negligence. Servidone subsequently initiated a third-party action against Orange and Rockland Utilities. The Supreme Court of Orange County granted summary judgment in favor of Servidone, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed this decision, ruling that Servidone lacked control over Rose's specific activity for the Labor Law § 200 and negligence claims. It also found that stepping from a truck onto uneven ground did not constitute an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240 (1), and no pertinent Industrial Code regulations were violated for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Construction Site SafetySafe Place to Work DoctrineGeneral Contractor LiabilityEmployer ControlElevation-Related Hazards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Co.

Joseph Rose (plaintiff) filed a class action against Northwestern Mutual Life Insurance Company and Northwestern Mutual Investment Securities LLC (defendants), alleging minimum wage and overtime violations under New York Labor Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Rose was an independent contractor and thus exempt from state labor laws, and that there was no relationship with NMIS. The court found that Rose was an independent contractor, not an employee, based on factors such as his contract designation, lack of fixed work schedule or supervision by Northwestern Mutual, and absence of fringe benefits or hourly wages. The court also determined there was no relationship between Rose and NMIS. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and all of plaintiff's claims were dismissed.

Independent Contractor StatusEmployment LawSummary JudgmentNew York Labor LawMinimum WageOvertime ViolationsInsurance AgentsClass ActionControl TestFringe Benefits
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 1999

White v. White Rose Food

This action, brought under Section 301 of the LMRA, arises from the disbursement of settlement funds after a plant closing and a labor strike involving White Rose Food and Local No. 138. Plaintiffs, former employees, contended that an 'Amendment to Settlement Agreement' which deducted employer payroll taxes from a $1,500,000 settlement fund was entered into without required union membership ratification. The court found that Local 138's leadership acted in bad faith and arbitrarily by concealing this amendment and its financial impact from members, thereby breaching its duty of fair representation. Consequently, the court held the defendant White Rose liable due to its collusion with the union leadership in this concealment. Judgment was granted in favor of the plaintiffs for the deducted amount plus prejudgment interest, and reasonable attorneys' fees were also awarded.

Duty of Fair RepresentationUnion RatificationSettlement AgreementPayroll Tax DeductionsBreach of ContractConcealmentBad Faith ConductApparent AuthorityExhaustion of Administrative RemediesAttorneys' Fees
References
30
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04249 [172 AD3d 1848]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2019

Matter of D'Altorio (Clare Rose, Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

This case concerns 104 striking employees of Clare Rose, Inc., including James D'Altorio, who filed for unemployment insurance benefits after their employer hired permanent replacement workers. The Department of Labor and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that these claimants were eligible for benefits and not subject to the typical seven-week suspension period under Labor Law § 592 (1). This decision was based on the employer's failure to provide written certification assuring striking employees of their return to work upon the strike's conclusion, despite hiring permanent replacements. Clare Rose, Inc. appealed these findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that claimants were indeed eligible for unemployment insurance benefits.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsStrike BenefitsIndustrial ControversyPermanent Replacement WorkersLabor Law § 592 (1)Unemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionEligibility for BenefitsStriking EmployeesEmployer Certification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Rose v. Brickel Ass'n

Leonard Rose, national sales manager for Brickel Association, died of a heart attack while walking to an appointment in frigid weather. His widow, the claimant, received a check from the employer along with a note indicating a workers' compensation claim had been filed. Relying on this, she delayed formal filing with the Workers' Compensation Board until March 1983, beyond the two-year limit. A WCLJ initially disallowed the claim, but the Board reversed, finding the payment and note constituted an advance payment waiving the time bar under Workers’ Compensation Law § 28, and deemed the death causally related to his stressful work and extreme weather conditions. The employer appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing sufficient evidence for the advance payment of compensation and a causally related accidental injury.

Workers' CompensationAdvance PaymentTime Bar WaiverCausally Related DeathHeart AttackJob StressExtreme Weather ConditionsWidow's ClaimBoard ReversalAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 1998

Rose v. Gelco Corp.

The plaintiff, Robert Rose, sustained injuries during his employment with Whirlpool Corporation after tripping over a fire extinguisher in a leased van. The van was leased from defendants Gelco Corporation and Gelco Corp./G.E. Capital Fleet Services, with the fire extinguisher installed by Allen Group, Inc. Plaintiffs appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which dismissed the complaint against Gelco pursuant to CPLR 3211 (a) (7) for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that Gelco, as owner, was immune from liability due to Whirlpool's immunity under the Workers’ Compensation Law. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to allege independent negligence by Gelco and could not recover under strict products liability or breach of implied warranty due to vague and conclusory allegations concerning defective design or manufacture.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawProduct LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantyMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Appellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityNegligence ClaimsVehicle Lease
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rose v. Mendon Leasing Co.

Plaintiffs Sylvan D. Rose and Orville Sterling, two African-American males, sued their former employer, Mendon Leasing Co., for racial discrimination under Title VII and 42 U.S.C. § 1981, following their termination for allegedly stealing gasoline. Mendon moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination backed by video surveillance. The plaintiffs claimed disparate treatment and pretext, asserting that Caucasian employees engaged in similar conduct without discipline, and alleged tampering with video evidence. The Court found that Mendon met its burden by showing a legitimate reason for termination, and plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or to rebut Mendon's evidence. Consequently, the Court granted Mendon's motion for summary judgment on the federal claims and dismissed the entire complaint, declining supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Racial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Disparate TreatmentPretextFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Wrongful Termination
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Ms. Kipps, Inc.

Ms. Kipps and Kay Kipps, debtors operating under Chapter 11, sought a stay against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers’ Union. The Union was pursuing a state court action against Feinberg, the Debtors' president, to recover unpaid employee benefit contributions owed by Kay Kipps, citing N.Y. Labor Law § 198-c. The Debtors argued the state action's claims were inextricably linked to their bankruptcy estate and would divert Feinberg's crucial efforts from the reorganization. The Bankruptcy Court asserted jurisdiction over the matter due to its potential impact on the bankruptcy case. It found that allowing the state action would result in duplicative litigation and impede the debtors' rehabilitation. Consequently, the Court granted the stay, concluding that the Union's public policy concerns regarding employee benefits could be adequately addressed within the bankruptcy proceedings through priority claims or motions to compel payment.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayDebtor in PossessionPersonal LiabilityEmployee BenefitsUnion ClaimsState Court ActionIntertwined ClaimsJurisdictionEquitable Considerations
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 249 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