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

Spherenomics Global Contact Centers v. Vcustomer Corp.

Plaintiff Spherenomics Global Contact Centers sued defendant vCustomer Corporation for breach of a non-solicitation agreement, breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing, promissory estoppel, and unjust enrichment. Spherenomics, a provider of outsourced call-center services, alleged that VCC, its subcontractor, improperly solicited and secured a long-term contract with their mutual client, Fingerhut, in violation of their November 2002 agreement. While the court found that VCC indeed breached the non-solicitation provision, it ultimately ruled in favor of VCC. The court concluded that Spherenomics failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that VCC's breach directly caused Spherenomics to suffer damages, specifically lost profits, deeming such claims too speculative to be recoverable under New York contract law or equitable theories.

Breach of ContractNon-Solicitation AgreementLost ProfitsDamagesCausationPromissory EstoppelUnjust EnrichmentContract LawNew York LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
32
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05207
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2025

Smith v. Global Contact Holding Co., Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County. The Supreme Court order had granted the defendants' motion to compel nonparty appellant Transport Workers Union, Local 100's compliance with a subpoena duces tecum. The union argued improper service of the motion, relying on a statutory provision no longer in effect. The court found that the union had waived its objection to personal jurisdiction by failing to object to jurisdiction in response to a prior motion to compel, despite its counsel receiving the subpoena. Furthermore, the union failed to demonstrate that the motion to compel constituted harassment or annoyance, as it sought compliance with a prior order to turn over relevant documents. A separate motion by defendants for Sandra Lennon to withdraw her appeal was granted.

Appellate DivisionSubpoena Duces TecumMotion to CompelPersonal JurisdictionWaiver of ObjectionCivil ProcedureNonparty AppellantUnion DocumentsDiscovery DisputeJudiciary Law
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03093
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2018

Contact Chiropractic, P.C. v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This case addresses the applicable statute of limitations for no-fault claims against a self-insured entity. The Court of Appeals determined that the three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214 (2) governs such claims, as the obligation to provide no-fault benefits by a self-insurer is statutory rather than contractual. This decision reversed the Appellate Division, which had applied a six-year statute of limitations based on a contractual nature. The Court clarified that in the absence of a private insurance contract, the self-insurer's liability for first-party benefits is wholly statutory. The ruling impacts procedural aspects without altering the substantive no-fault obligations of self-insurers.

Statute of LimitationsNo-Fault InsuranceSelf-Insurer LiabilityCPLR 214 (2)CPLR 213 (2)Statutory ObligationContractual ObligationFirst-Party BenefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentsAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06423 [222 AD3d 1151]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2023

Matter of Mosner v. LINK9 LLC

Claimant, a New Jersey resident, was injured in California and filed a workers' compensation claim in New York, despite the employer's office being typically in New Jersey. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a WCLJ finding of jurisdiction and dismissed the claim, concluding there were insufficient contacts with New York to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for the Board to have jurisdiction over an out-of-state injury, there must be sufficient and significant contacts between New York and the employer to indicate the employment was, to some extent, sited in the state. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that such contacts were lacking.

Workers' CompensationSubject Matter JurisdictionOut-of-State InjuryNew York ContactsEmployer ResidencyEmployee ResidencyBoard DecisionAppellate ReviewThird DepartmentJurisdiction Dismissal
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2004

Laratro v. City of New York

This document presents a dissenting opinion concerning a tort claim against a municipality for injuries sustained due to a failure to provide emergency assistance, a governmental function typically protected by immunity. The dissent argues that the plaintiff failed to establish a 'special relationship' with the municipality, specifically the 'direct contact' element, as contact was made by a coworker rather than the injured party. The opinion emphasizes that expanding the definition of direct contact to include non-family or non-contractual third parties should be a legislative or higher court decision due to the lack of precedent and potential for significantly increased municipal liability. The majority, however, reversed the lower court's decision, denying the municipal defendants' motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint.

Special relationship doctrineMunicipal immunityDirect contactEmergency services liabilityTort lawSummary judgmentNew York appellate courtGovernmental functionCoworker contact
References
25
Case No. ADJ7469776
Regular
Jun 01, 2015

PAUL PALMER vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns whether California workers' compensation jurisdiction applies to an out-of-state professional football player's cumulative injury claim. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, affirming the WCJ's finding that the applicant's minimal contact with California (5 out of 62 games) did not establish a sufficient connection for due process under *Federal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)*. The majority found that California lacked a legitimate and substantial interest in adjudicating the claim, deeming the applicant's contact "de minimis." Commissioner Sweeney dissented, arguing that California has a substantial interest in injured workers and that the applicant's contact was more than de minimis, thus supporting WCAB jurisdiction.

WCABPaul PalmerKansas City ChiefsTravelers Property Casualty Company of AmericaADJ7469776Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeWCJFederal Insurance Co. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. (Johnson)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moore v. Eagle Sanitation, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Moore and Roger Snyder filed a lawsuit against Eagle Sanitation Inc. and Michael Reali, seeking unpaid overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. They moved for conditional certification as an FLSA collective action, production of contact information for potential class members from April 2005 to April 2011, and court authorization to circulate a Notice of Pendency. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge A. Kathleen Tomlinson, granted the motion for conditional certification, finding that the plaintiffs met the lenient evidentiary standard required at this stage. Additionally, the court granted the request for defendants to produce contact information for a six-year period to account for state law claims, emphasizing judicial economy. The court also authorized the dissemination of the proposed notice, with minor modifications regarding the inclusion of defense counsel's contact details and clarification on potential costs and discovery obligations for opt-in plaintiffs.

FLSACollective ActionOvertime CompensationNew York Labor LawConditional CertificationNotice of PendencyStatute of LimitationsDiscovery of Class MembersWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Peter F.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Ulster County, which terminated respondent's parental rights over his son, Peter F., on the grounds of abandonment pursuant to Social Services Law § 384-b. The respondent, Peter F.'s father, had a history of sexual abuse and neglect towards Peter's older sister, leading to supervised visitation with Peter and eventually Peter's placement in foster care. The petitioner, a social services agency, initiated proceedings after alleging respondent failed to plan for Peter's return, visit the child, or keep the agency informed of his whereabouts. The Family Court found clear and convincing evidence of abandonment during the six months prior to the petition's filing, as respondent made no attempts to contact the petitioner, and that he was not discouraged from doing so. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, rejecting respondent's argument that petitioner bore the burden to prove lack of good cause for non-contact. The court reiterated that once abandonment is proven by the petitioner, the burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate an inability to maintain contact or being prevented/discouraged from doing so, a burden the respondent failed to meet despite various claims of calling the caseworker, address changes, and a hernia operation. The Appellate Division found the Family Court's credibility determinations were well-supported by the record.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewFamily Court JurisdictionUlster CountyFoster CareChild WelfareBurden of ProofCredibility Determinations
References
11
Case No. ADJ6778804
Regular
Jun 15, 2012

MARY AVILA vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant's petition for reconsideration was denied because her case was properly dismissed for failure to prosecute under Rule 10582. The applicant's counsel had not contacted her for over three years, and despite notices, the applicant failed to provide a verified objection with medical records or an explanation for her lack of contact. The Board found that the applicant and her counsel did not fulfill their duty to maintain a current address and keep the Appeals Board informed. The dismissal was without prejudice, allowing the applicant to potentially reopen the case if she can be located and demonstrates good cause within the statutory period.

Petition for ReconsiderationWCJDismissal Without PrejudiceFailure to ProsecuteAppeals Board Rule 10582Official Address RecordNotice of IntentionVerified ObjectionLack of ProsecutionGood Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Welte

The defendant was charged with criminal contempt in the second degree and stalking in the fourth degree for allegedly violating a 'no contact' order of protection. The defendant reportedly accessed the complainant's Facebook 'Friend List' and contacted friends and family, accusing the complainant, Maureen Perry, of denying him access to their children. The court examined whether these communications constituted a violation of the order or stalking. Citing ambiguity in the order and the lack of specific allegations for elements of stalking, the court found the accusatory instruments facially insufficient. Consequently, the charges were dismissed.

Criminal ContemptStalkingOrder of ProtectionFacebookSocial MediaIndirect ContactFacial InsufficiencyPenal LawDue ProcessAmbiguity
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 323 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