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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03497 [206 AD3d 620]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2022

Everett v. CMI Servs. Corp.

The plaintiff, Ron Everett, sustained personal injuries after slipping and falling on accumulated water and feces in an employee break room at his workplace. Defendants, including CMI Services Corp., Omni New York, LLC, and Plaza Residences, LLP, moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses such as inherent job hazard, open and obvious condition, and employer protection under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the plaintiff was not engaged in his cleaning duties at the time of the fall, the dangerous condition was not proven to be non-inherently dangerous despite being open and obvious (due to hidden feces), and the defendants failed to establish an alter ego or special employer relationship to invoke Workers' Compensation Law immunity. The court concluded that the defendants did not demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary Judgment MotionCommon-Law NegligenceOpen and Obvious ConditionInherent Job HazardWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Alter Ego DoctrineSpecial EmployerAppellate Review
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Connor v. Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted the defendant’s motion to transfer a personal injury action from Bronx County to Nassau County. The plaintiff had initially placed venue in Bronx County based on his alleged residence at the time of commencement in December 1994. However, discovery revealed that Workers’ Compensation documents indicated the plaintiff had changed his address to Suffern, Rockland County, in July 1994, meaning he did not reside in Bronx County when the action was commenced. The defendant subsequently moved to transfer the action, citing the plaintiff's true residence and the inconvenience to material witnesses of a trial in Bronx County. The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff resided in Rockland County at the time the action commenced and that the defendant had promptly moved to change venue after ascertaining the plaintiff’s actual residence.

Personal InjuryVenue TransferChange of VenueAppellate ReviewCPLRResidence DisputeWorkers' Compensation DocumentsNassau County Supreme CourtBronx CountyRockland County
References
2
Case No. MO:16-CV-00313-RAJ
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2017

Minyard v. Double D Tong, Inc.

Plaintiffs Dustin Minyard, Jeremy Dutch, and Justin Clark filed a collective action lawsuit against Double D Tong, Inc., Robert Duncan, and Cody Duncan, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime. Plaintiffs claimed they and other non-exempt casing employees were not properly compensated for overtime hours, either due to being paid on a quantity basis without all hours being tracked or by excluding additional pay (bonuses, allowances) from their regular rate for overtime calculations. The court initially granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs' motion for conditional certification, limiting the class to Field Hands and Crew Pushers. However, upon Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration, the court granted the motion, broadening the conditionally certified class to include all non-exempt casing workers who were subject to the alleged common, illegal pay plan, regardless of their specific job duties. The court also approved the dissemination of notice via mail, email, and workplace posting, with specific instructions for the notice content and class period.

Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)Overtime PayConditional CertificationCollective ActionWage and HourOilfield ServicesNon-Exempt EmployeesPiece Rate PayBonusesTruck Allowance
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blum v. General Electric Co.

This is a consolidated action brought by 211 plaintiffs, both American and German, against Lucent Technologies, Inc., General Electric Company, Raytheon Company, and Honeywell International, Inc. The plaintiffs, members of German or American armed forces, allege exposure to dangerous levels of ionizing radiation from radar systems, causing various types of cancers. Defendants moved to sever and dismiss the German plaintiffs' claims based on the doctrine of *forum non conveniens*, arguing that Germany is a more convenient forum. The Court granted in part and denied in part the motion. It denied dismissal for German plaintiffs who alleged a connection to Fort Bliss or other U.S. military bases, citing U.S. local interest, but granted dismissal for German plaintiffs with no alleged connection to the United States.

Forum Non ConveniensSeveranceDismissalConsolidated ActionGerman PlaintiffsAmerican PlaintiffsRadar SystemsIonizing RadiationProduct LiabilityMilitary Training
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2006

Stevenson v. Town of Oyster Bay

The plaintiffs, professional clam-diggers George Stevenson, Terrance Stevenson, and Richard Schenna, brought an action against the Town of Oyster Bay and various individual defendants for alleged violations of the Fourteenth Amendment under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985(3), and 1988. The plaintiffs challenged the Town's one-year residency requirement for clamming licenses as unconstitutional, arguing it discriminated against non-Town residents and violated their fundamental right to travel under the Privileges and Immunities Clause of Article IV. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiffs never established residency and that the Town Clerk had discretion to deny permits. The Court determined that the plaintiffs, being New York State residents but not residents of the specific Town of Oyster Bay for the required duration, lacked standing to challenge a local ordinance under the Privileges and Immunities Clause because that clause only applies to "out-of-state" residents. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the amended complaint.

Residency RequirementClamming LicensesEqual Protection ClausePrivileges and Immunities ClauseRight to TravelSummary JudgmentStanding LawMunicipal LawConstitutional LawFederal Court
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McNaughton v. Broach

Sixteen members of Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, initiated a lawsuit against defendant Broach and 34 other officers, alleging a conspiracy to arbitrarily control the union, deprive members of autonomy, and manage affairs for personal gain. The plaintiffs sought various injunctive reliefs, including restoring member rights and directing an accounting of funds. The primary issue on appeal concerned the validity of service by publication on defendant Broach, a non-resident, who moved to vacate the service, arguing its impropriety due to his non-residency and lack of property within New York State, a prerequisite for such service without personal jurisdiction. The Special Term initially denied Broach's motion, reasoning that the cause of action arose in New York, related to local property rights, and the sought relief could be enforced locally. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that while the cause of action might have originated in New York, substituted service on a non-resident defendant requires proof of property within the state over which the court can assume in rem jurisdiction, as personal jurisdiction (in personam) was absent. The court emphasized that without such property or in personam jurisdiction, any judgment directing specific actions or an accounting against the non-resident Broach would be unenforceable, therefore rendering the order for service by publication void.

Service by PublicationJurisdiction In RemNon-Resident DefendantUnion GovernanceLabor Union DisputeAppellate ProcedureMotion to VacateProperty RightsEnforceability of JudgmentConspiracy
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 27, 2006

Smolik v. Turner Construction Co.

The plaintiff, a Kings County resident, sustained injuries at a New Jersey construction site while working for a New Jersey employer. Following initial treatment and a New Jersey workers' compensation claim, the plaintiff initiated a personal injury action in New York against Turner Construction Company and Metrovest Equities, Inc., both New York corporations with operations in New Jersey. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on the basis of forum non conveniens, arguing New York was an inconvenient forum. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted these motions, and the appellate court affirmed the dismissal, finding no improvident exercise of discretion given the lack of substantial nexus to New York.

Personal InjuryForum Non ConveniensDismissalAppealNew York CourtsNew Jersey SitusJurisdictionCPLR 327DamagesConstruction Site
References
9
Case No. 13-71700
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Trustees v. Kern (In re Kern)

The Plaintiffs, the Board of Trustees of benefit funds under ERISA, sought to declare debts owed by Defendant Richard Kern, principal owner of Cool Sheetmetal, Inc. (CSI), non-dischargeable in bankruptcy. The core issue was whether monies deducted from employee paychecks but not remitted to the benefit funds constituted non-dischargeable debts under § 523(a)(4) and (6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court ruled that monies deducted for a vacation fund are non-dischargeable because they were subject to a statutory trust, Kern acted as a fiduciary, and committed defalcation. However, deductions for union assessments and political action league (PAL) funds were deemed dischargeable, as no statutory trust was established for these. Furthermore, the Plaintiffs' claim under § 523(a)(6) for willful and malicious injury was dismissed. The Court granted summary judgment in part for Plaintiffs regarding the Vacation Fund deductions, with the exact amount to be determined at trial, and granted summary judgment in part for Defendant on the other claims.

BankruptcyNon-dischargeabilityERISAFiduciary DutyDefalcationSummary JudgmentEmployee ContributionsVacation FundUnion AssessmentsPolitical Action League (PAL)
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Jesus v. National RR Passenger Corp.

This action, brought under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA), involved a defendant's motion to transfer the case from the Southern District of New York to the District Court of New Jersey. The plaintiff, a New Jersey resident, was injured in New Jersey, received medical treatment there, and all witnesses reside in New Jersey. Despite the plaintiff's opposition, which cited the FELA's broad venue, forum choice, and docket conditions, the court found the plaintiff's choice of a non-resident forum diminished. The court concluded that New Jersey was a more convenient forum for all parties and witnesses, and that the proximity of the districts and relative docket conditions did not outweigh the lack of connection to New York. Consequently, the court granted the transfer motion, moving the case to the District of New Jersey.

Federal Employers' Liability ActFELAVenue TransferForum Non Conveniens28 U.S.C. § 1404(a)Choice of ForumConvenience of PartiesConvenience of WitnessesInterest of JusticeInterstate Transfer
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 15,020 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