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

United States v. Montes-Reyes

Defendant Leonardo Montes-Reyes moved to suppress evidence, including physical items from a hotel room search and statements, obtained on December 19, 2007. Law enforcement agents, including DEA Agent Marlow Luna, gained entry to Montes-Reyes's hotel room using a ruse about searching for a missing four-year-old girl. The court found this initial consent involuntary, equating the "missing girl" ruse to creating a false sense of exigent circumstances, similar to a gas leak emergency. The opinion determined that subsequent written and oral consents to search, as well as statements made by Montes-Reyes, were not sufficiently purged of the taint from the initial illegal entry. Consequently, the court granted Montes-Reyes's motion to suppress all the evidence.

Fourth AmendmentSearch and SeizureConsent to SearchPolice DeceptionVoluntarinessMotion to SuppressExigent CircumstancesFruit of the Poisonous TreeMiranda WarningsDrug Enforcement Agency
References
43
Case No. ADJ2586092
Regular
Jan 14, 2010

OSCAR MONTES DE OCA vs. TRADINOI, INC., dba TRA DI NOI RESTORANTE, PUBLIC SERVICE MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY, MAGNA CARTA INSURANCE COMPANY

This is an order granting a petition for reconsideration by Tradinoi, Inc. and its insurer regarding a previous decision. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) finds that reconsideration is necessary to allow further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is intended to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to enable a just decision after potential further proceedings. All future filings in this matter should be directed to the WCAB Commissioners' Office.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationTradinoi Inc.Public Service Mutual Insurance CompanyMagna Carta Insurance CompanyOscar Montes de OCAADJ2586092VNO 05496159Decision After ReconsiderationStatutory time constraints
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De La Concha v. Fordham University

Plaintiff Harry de la Concha sued his former employer, Fordham University, alleging discrimination based on race (Latino) and national origin (Puerto Rican) after his termination. Fordham moved for summary judgment, asserting legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for the discharge. The court found no evidence to support a claim of national origin discrimination and granted summary judgment to Fordham on that claim. Regarding the race discrimination claim, the court determined that de la Concha failed to demonstrate that Fordham's stated reasons for his dismissal were a pretext for discrimination, despite an immediate supervisor's use of racial slurs. Consequently, the court granted Fordham's motion for summary judgment on the race claim, dismissing de la Concha's Title VII claim in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentPretextHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56McDonnell Douglas Burden-Shifting
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Gregorio v. CBS, Inc.

Plaintiff Carl De Gregorio sued CBS after footage of him holding hands with a co-worker on Madison Avenue was broadcast for a news segment about romance, despite his explicit request to prevent its use. De Gregorio alleged invasion of privacy under the New York Civil Rights Law, intentional infliction of emotional distress, prima facie tort, and defamation. The court granted summary judgment to CBS, finding that the broadcast, filmed in a public place for a newsworthy topic, did not constitute an invasion of privacy or defamation. The decision emphasized that incidental use and the constitutional protection of freedom of the press precluded liability, even if the subject desired greater privacy.

Invasion of PrivacyCivil Rights LawFreedom of the PressSummary JudgmentDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressPrima Facie TortNewsworthinessIncidental UsePublic Street
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Los Santos v. City of New York

Plaintiff Alsacia De Los Santos sued the City of New York, NYPD, and Lt. Christopher Pasquerelli, alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state/municipal human rights laws. De Los Santos claimed Lt. Pasquerelli retaliated against her for reporting a sexual encounter between two police officers, Lt. Kevin Leddy and Officer Tara Eckert. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to state a First Amendment claim, could not show municipal liability, and failed to state a claim under human rights laws. The Court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's conversations about the sexual encounter did not constitute speech on a matter of public concern for First Amendment purposes. Additionally, the court found she could not reasonably believe she was reporting sexual harassment under human rights laws.

RetaliationFirst AmendmentPublic ConcernSummary JudgmentSexual HarassmentNYPDPolice MisconductEmployment DiscriminationMunicipal LiabilityQualified Immunity
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia De Projeto Ltda. v. Republic of Peru

Figueiredo Ferraz Consultoria E Engenharia de Projeto Ltda. (Plaintiff) had petitioned to confirm a $21 million arbitration award against the Republic of Peru, Ministerio de Vivienda, Construcción y Saneamiento, and Programa Agua Para Todos (Defendants). The Court dismissed the action due to forum non conveniens following a mandate from the Court of Appeals. Subsequently, Defendants moved for attorneys' fees and costs amounting to over $1.1 million. The Court denied this motion, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) governs the availability of attorneys' fees, and neither the FAA nor the parties' original agreement provides for such an award. The Court also rejected arguments regarding the applicability of Peruvian law and any alleged concession by the Plaintiff on fees.

Arbitration AwardForum Non ConveniensAttorneys' FeesFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationJudicial DiscretionContractual DisputeCivil ProcedureSecond CircuitMotion to Dismiss
References
14
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02309
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Buchanan v. De Orio

The plaintiff, John Buchanan, was injured after falling from a ladder while cleaning gutters at the defendants' two-family home. He had previously installed the gutters. Buchanan commenced an action against the homeowners, Michael De Orio et al., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), 241 (6), and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion, finding the homeowner's exemption applied to the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims due to no direction or control by the defendants. For the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, the court determined the defendants lacked authority to supervise or control the work. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

Homeowner's ExemptionLabor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceFall from LadderSafe Place to WorkSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewTwo-Family Dwelling
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centro De La Comunidad His-pana De Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay

The Town of Oyster Bay enacted an ordinance in 2009 prohibiting individuals from stopping vehicles in public rights-of-way to solicit work and drivers from stopping to solicit employees. Plaintiffs, Centro De La Comunidad Hispana De Locust Valley and The Workplace Project, challenged the ordinance, arguing it violated their First Amendment rights. The Court found that the ordinance regulated commercial speech and applied the Central Hudson test. While acknowledging the Town's substantial interest in traffic safety and public welfare, the Court concluded that the ordinance was not narrowly tailored. It deemed the ordinance unconstitutional due to its overbreadth, as it prohibited lawful expressive conduct that did not necessarily pose a threat to safety, and noted the availability of less speech-restrictive alternatives. Therefore, the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment was granted.

First AmendmentCommercial SpeechOrdinanceSolicitation of EmploymentConstitutional OverbreadthSummary JudgmentDay LaborersPublic Right-of-WayTraffic SafetyContent-Based Restriction
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley v. Town of Oyster Bay

This case involves two organizations, Centro de la Comunidad Hispana de Locust Valley and The Workplace Project, advocating for immigrant workers, suing the Town of Oyster Bay and its Supervisor John Venditto. They challenged a town ordinance prohibiting day laborers from soliciting work from vehicles, claiming violations of free speech, due process, and equal protection rights under the First and Fourteenth Amendments and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Court denied the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that Centro had organizational standing. It also granted the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the defendants' counterclaims, deeming them mirror images of the plaintiffs' claims. Finally, the Court affirmed Magistrate Judge Lindsay's protective order, preventing the disclosure of plaintiff organizations' members and day laborers' identities, citing freedom of association rights and the potential for harassment.

Day LaborersSolicitation OrdinanceFree SpeechDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentOrganizational StandingSummary JudgmentDeclaratory Judgment Act
References
43
Showing 1-10 of 520 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