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

Golden v. Ohio Barge Line, Inc.

Three former employees of Ohio Barge Line, Inc. (Ohio) filed separate actions against Ohio, its parent United States Steel Corporation, and subsidiary Bradley Transportation Line for wrongful discharge. District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and its representatives were also joined as defendants in two of the actions. Ohio moved to vacate the service of process and dismiss the complaints, arguing it was not doing business in New York and thus not amenable to service there. The court found that Ohio, a separate Pennsylvania-incorporated subsidiary, was not subject to New York jurisdiction, rejecting the plaintiffs' argument that the parent company's presence extended jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted Ohio's motions to dismiss and quashed the service of process.

JurisdictionService of ProcessCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityWrongful DischargeFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4Labor Management Relations ActLabor Management and Disclosure ActDistrict CourtIntercorporate Relations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cole v. Nofri

Justice Martoche dissents from an order concerning a child custody modification. The mother sought to change the existing custody arrangement, established in 2005, which granted primary physical custody to the father. Her petitions in 2006 and 2011 alleged the child suffered emotional difficulties and expressed a strong desire to live with her. Family Court dismissed the 2011 petition, concluding the mother failed to show a sufficient change in circumstances and that the child lacked the maturity to make a wise custody choice. Martoche, J. argued that the lower court's dismissal should be affirmed, emphasizing the importance of stability in custody arrangements, the child's history of anxiety, and the absence of expert testimony to warrant a modification, thereby upholding the original determination that it was in the child's best interest to reside with the father.

Child CustodyChild's PreferenceChange in CircumstancesParental RightsBest Interests of the ChildFamily LawDissenting OpinionPsychological EvaluationAdjustment DisorderEmotional Distress
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08980
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Ricci v. Maria Regina Residence

This case involves an appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the workers' compensation carrier for Maria Regina Residence was entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for a claim related to Cyndia Ricci's work-related knee injury, asserting Ricci had pre-existing heart and arthritis conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ricci's preexisting conditions hindered her employment potential. The court concluded that the medical opinion relied upon was based on generalities and speculation, and that conditions controlled by medication do not, without more, constitute a hindrance to employability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentEmployabilityMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Informal Opinion No.

The opinion addresses whether Rockland County can mandate that 50% of public works project hires be county residents. It analyzes various constitutional clauses, finding the Commerce Clause not an impediment due to the 'market participant' doctrine and congressional authorization for federal funds. It distinguishes a local law from a state law concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause, suggesting a local law targeting non-county residents (including other state residents) might be valid. The opinion also examines the Equal Protection Clause and bona fide residency requirements, concluding they generally pass the rational basis test. However, it cautions that such a local law must not violate General Municipal Law § 103 competitive bidding requirements, which would be a factual determination on a case-by-case basis.

Public Works ProjectsResident Hiring RequirementsLocal Law AuthorizationCommerce ClausePrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawHome Rule LawMarket Participant Doctrine
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 1983

Baxter v. Fulton Ice & Cube Co.

Raymond Baxter was injured while using an ice bagger machine and sued his employer, Fulton Ice & Cube, and several manufacturers/distributors, including Ohio Gear, Inc. His employer defaulted, leading to an inquest where Baxter was awarded $100,000. Ohio Gear then attempted to limit Baxter's potential recovery against them to this $100,000 by invoking collateral estoppel. Special Term denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed, holding that the plaintiff did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the damages vigorously during the inquest against a judgment-proof defendant, therefore the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply to cap the recovery against Ohio Gear, Inc.

Collateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionDefault JudgmentInquestDamagesFull and Fair OpportunityJudgment ProofPersonal InjuryManufacturer LiabilityAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ohio Reinsurance Corp. v. British National Insurance

Plaintiff Ohio Reinsurance Corporation sued British National Insurance Company Limited and British National Life Insurance Society Limited in the Southern District of New York, seeking reformation of a reinsurance contract and a declaration of rights. Ohio Re contended an unwritten understanding regarding casualty insurance limits led to overpayment, while defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration. Citing a broad arbitration clause in the contract and the Federal Arbitration Act, the court found the dispute arbitrable. The court rejected Ohio Re's arguments that contract reformation was outside the arbitration scope or an English arbitrator's power. Consequently, the defendants' motion to stay the action pending arbitration was granted.

Reinsurance ContractContract ReformationArbitration ClauseFederal Arbitration ActStay of ProceedingsDiversity JurisdictionEnglish LawSouthern District of New YorkCivil ProcedureContract Law
References
11
Case No. 529454
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2020

Matter of Mathena XX. v. Brandon YY.

The case involves a custody modification dispute between Mathena XX. (mother/appellant) and Brandon YY. (father/respondent) regarding their two children. Following the father's relocation out of the originally agreed-upon school district, both parents sought to modify a prior custody order to designate their respective residences as the children's primary residence for school enrollment. The Family Court of Tioga County granted the father's petition, giving him primary decision-making authority for educational matters and designating his residence in Interlaken, Seneca County, as primary for school enrollment. The mother appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's order, finding its determination to be amply supported by the record and in the children's best interests, specifically upholding the findings regarding parental credibility and the overall assessment of factors for a best interests determination.

Custody ModificationParental RelocationSchool EnrollmentBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court Act Article 6Joint Legal CustodyPhysical CustodyAppellate ReviewCredibility FindingsParenting Schedule
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szucs v. Committee of Interns and Residents

Paul Szucs, a physician at Bronx Municipal Hospital Center (BMHC), sued the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), a labor union, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a conspiracy with BMHC to deny his collective bargaining rights and force his resignation. He also brought several state law claims. Szucs claimed CIR representatives conspired with BMHC to frustrate his grievance and arbitration attempts after he was fired from his residency program for alleged attendance issues. The court granted CIR's motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, finding no evidence of a conspiracy between CIR and BMHC, and no evidence that CIR acted under color of state law or had a policy to conspire. The court dismissed the federal claim and remanded the remaining New York State common law claims for breach of contract, breach of duty of fair representation, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and concerted action to state court. The court reserved decision on motions for attorneys' fees and costs, referring them to a Magistrate Judge.

Civil RightsSection 1983Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessConspiracySummary JudgmentState Law ClaimsRemandAttorneys' Fees
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 1994

Jarvis v. Jarvis

Respondent appealed a Family Court order dismissing his application to reduce child support payments from $60 to $25 per week, citing a job loss and reduced income. The petitioner had also filed a violation petition seeking an increase in child support. The Hearing Examiner and Family Court found insufficient grounds for modification, concluding that respondent had an imputed earning capacity as a carpenter/construction worker. The court found respondent delinquent in payments, attempted to conceal employment, and failed to seek unemployment benefits, leading to a discounting of his claims. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, stating that respondent failed to establish a change in circumstances warranting a downward modification.

Child SupportSupport ModificationImputed IncomeArrearagesConcealment of IncomeUnemployment BenefitsFamily LawAppealFinancial DisclosureDelinquent Payments
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin v. Martin

The father appealed two Family Court orders concerning child support modification and counsel fees. The father sought to modify his child support obligation due to business collapse, illness, and an alleged agreement with the mother to provide childcare in lieu of payments. The mother sought a finding of willful violation. The Support Magistrate dismissed the father's petitions and found willful violation, which the Family Court affirmed. On appeal, the Court found the father received ineffective assistance of counsel due to his attorney's failure to introduce crucial medical evidence and ensure a key witness's presence, which prejudiced his case. Therefore, the appellate court modified the December 29, 2005 order, reversed the October 26, 2006 order, remitted for a new trial on the modification and violation petitions, and denied counsel fees.

Ineffective Assistance of CounselChild SupportModification of Support OrderWillful ViolationAdjournment DenialEvidence AdmissibilityMedical RecordsTherapist TestimonyIncarcerationFamily Law
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 812 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