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
Jan 01, 1981

MATTER OF MOHAWK FINISHING PRODS., INC. v. State Div. of Human Rights

This dissenting opinion concerns Michele Cushing, an employee of Mohawk Finishing Products Corporation, who was terminated after raising concerns about perceived sex discrimination, although actual discrimination was not proven. The State Division of Human Rights initially granted her relief for retaliation, which was affirmed by the Human Rights Appeal Board. However, the Appellate Division annulled and remitted the decision, distinguishing between protective clauses in the Human Rights Law. Justice Fuchsberg argues that the anti-retaliation provision should protect employees who reasonably believe a practice is discriminatory, even if later found lawful. He proposes reversing the Appellate Division's order and remitting the case to the State Division of Human Rights for a specific finding on the reasonableness of Ms. Cushing’s belief.

Anti-retaliationHuman Rights LawSex DiscriminationReasonable BeliefEmployment LawDissenting OpinionAdministrative ReviewWorkplace RetaliationEmployee RightsJudicial Interpretation
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Gordon

The bankruptcy trustee moved to object to the classification of a $320 claim filed by the Department of Probation of the City of New York against Criterion Dyeing and Finishing Co. as a priority wage claim. The claim originated from a 1973 Family Court order directing the bankrupt employer to withhold an employee's wages for dependents' support, which the employer failed to remit due to a dishonored check. Citing United States v. Embassy Restaurant, the court determined that these deductions were not "money directly due to the wage earner in back wages" and therefore did not meet the criteria for priority status under the Bankruptcy Act. Consequently, the trustee's objection to the priority wage claim was sustained.

BankruptcyPriority ClaimWage ClaimChild SupportFamily CourtNew York LawDebtor-CreditorBankruptcy TrusteeClaim ObjectionUndistributed Wages
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mohawk Finishing Products, Inc. v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner challenged a determination by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a finding of unlawful discriminatory practice against the petitioner. The original complaint stemmed from the petitioner allegedly retaliating against an employee for opposing perceived sex discrimination, although the Division of Human Rights found no actual sex discrimination. The court had previously annulled and remitted the case due to an inconsistency, but the Board failed to clarify its findings. This court now rules that retaliation for opposing practices mistakenly believed to be unlawful is not protected under the Human Rights Law if the underlying practice was, in fact, lawful. Consequently, the Board's determination against the petitioner is annulled, and the petition is granted.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewUnlawful Discriminatory PracticeSubstantial EvidenceClarification of FindingsEmployment Law
References
6
Case No. CV-04-1308
Regular Panel Decision

55 Motor Avenue Co. v. Liberty Industrial Finishing Corp.

This case involves two consolidated actions under the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) concerning liability for removing hazardous substances from the Liberty Industrial Finishing Superfund Site in Farmingdale, New York. The court considered and granted a proposed consent judgment, which outlines a $31.8 million remedial plan to clean up toxic substances from soil and groundwater. Various private parties, along with the United States Department of Defense and the United States General Services Administration, agreed to share the cleanup costs. The court found the settlement to be procedurally and substantively fair, reasonable, and consistent with CERCLA's objectives, despite an area of remaining contamination (Plume B) that will be addressed separately.

CERCLAEnvironmental cleanupHazardous wasteSuperfund SiteConsent judgmentRemedial actionGroundwater contaminationSoil contaminationIndustrial parkFederal litigation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Textile Workers Pension Fund v. Standard Dye & Finishing Co.

Plaintiff Textile Workers Pension Fund sued Defendant Standard Dye & Finishing Co., Inc. to collect withdrawal assessments under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA). Standard Dye ceased its primary business operations in June 1980, prior to the MPPAA's effective date of September 26, 1980, but retained a few employees for clean-up and dismantling work through October 1980, for whom pension contributions were made. The core legal issue is whether Standard Dye "completely withdrew" from the pension plan before September 26, 1980, which would eliminate liability due to the Tax Reform Act of 1984. The Court analyzed the meaning of "permanently ceases all covered operations" under 29 U.S.C. § 1383(a), considering similar precedents. The Court found that the retention of a skeleton crew for liquidation activities did not prevent a complete cessation of covered operations. Therefore, Standard Dye effected a complete withdrawal prior to the MPPAA's effective date.

Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanComplete WithdrawalCovered OperationsTax Reform Act of 1984Retroactive ApplicationSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 1991

In re the Claim of Chura

R & J Robichaud Drywall Corporation appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board regarding the employment status of a drywall finisher. The Board determined the finisher was an employee, not an independent contractor, leading to additional unemployment insurance contributions for R & J. Evidence showed the claimant did not operate as an independent contractor, lacked advertising, and did not bill R & J. R & J controlled payment, work instructions, supplied materials, and provided workers' compensation and health insurance. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's employer-employee relationship determination and affirmed the decision.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployer-Employee RelationshipWorkers' CompensationEmployment StatusAdministrative AppealLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewDrywall Finisher
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Jersey Media Group Inc. v. Fox News Network, LLC

New Jersey Media Group (NJMG) sued Fox News Network (Fox News) for copyright infringement of its "9/11 Photograph" in two consolidated actions (Photo Claims). Fox News counterclaimed against NJMG for copyright infringement and false endorsement regarding three video clips displayed on NJMG's website (Video Counterclaims). NJMG then filed a Third Party Complaint against Daily Caller, Inc. and News Distribution Network, Inc. (NDN) seeking indemnification for Fox News’ counterclaims (Indemnification Claims). Third Party Defendants, joined by NJMG, moved to sever the Video Counterclaims and Indemnification Claims from the Photo Claims. The Court granted the motion to sever, finding that the claims did not arise from the same transaction or occurrence, presented different questions of fact, had minimal overlap in witnesses and documentary proof, and while settlement was not necessarily facilitated, judicial economy and avoidance of prejudice favored severance.

Copyright InfringementSeverance of ClaimsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 21Judicial EconomyPrejudiceLanham ActIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party ComplaintConsolidated ActionsFair Use Defense
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1998

Correia v. Professional Data Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Creative Finishes, Ltd., fell 16 feet from an elevated platform while working at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan, sustaining multiple fractures. He initiated an action against the building owner (Professional Data Management, Inc.), construction manager (Gotham Construction Corp.), and building manager (Williamson, Picket & Gross, Inc.), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Gotham subsequently impleaded Creative Finishes, Ltd. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Gotham's cross-motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no evidence to support a recalcitrant worker defense and noting that factual questions regarding Gotham's own negligence, distinct from its statutory liability, precluded summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim.

Labor LawScaffoldingAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseGeneral Obligations LawConstruction AccidentPainter Fall
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2011

Mayo v. Metropolitan Opera Ass'n, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment regarding a worker's fall from a ladder at the Metropolitan Opera House. Plaintiff Manuel Mayo sustained injuries while trying to close a hatch door on the roof, leading to claims under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 200 and common-law negligence against Lincoln Center and Metropolitan Opera Association (the Met). The court found Met and Lincoln Center liable under Labor Law § 240(1) for failing to provide adequate safety devices. Additionally, the Met pursued claims against third-party defendants Strauss Painting and Creative Finishes for breach of an agreement to procure insurance. The decision largely affirmed the lower court's rulings but modified the Met's motion for summary judgment against Creative Finishes due to unresolved factual issues regarding contractual obligations. Nova Casualty Company was granted summary judgment, declaring no obligation to indemnify the Met or Creative due to untimely notice of claim and other policy conditions.

Labor Law § 240(1) LiabilityLabor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary Judgment MotionBreach of ContractInsurance Procurement AgreementIndemnification ClaimsThird-Party LitigationUntimely Notice of ClaimAdditional Insured Status
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Executive Photo, Inc. v. Norrell

This case involves an action for conversion of property and violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO). Defendant Rene Norrell moved to dismiss the amended complaint under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), arguing that the plaintiff failed to sufficiently allege "continuity" for the RICO claim. The Court noted that in a previous order, it had granted dismissal of the RICO claim but allowed repleading. The amended complaint now details "repeated and numerous" predicate acts occurring over at least two and a half years, which the Court found sufficient to establish closed-ended continuity. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was denied.

RICO ActRacketeeringConversion of PropertyMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Pleading StandardsContinuity RequirementPredicate ActsClosed-ended ContinuityAmended Complaint
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 64 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