Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ9103856

Regular

Sep 24, 2014

OCTAVIO FILIPPINI vs. PILLSBURY, WINTHROP, SHAW, PITTMAN, LLP, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Pillsbury, Winthrop, Shaw, Pittman, LLP and its insurer, Twin City Fire Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is necessary to ensure a complete understanding of the record and to issue a just decision after reconsideration. All future communications are to be filed in writing directly with the Board's Commissioners, not with the district office or through e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPillsbury Winthrop Shaw PittmanTwin City Fire Insurance CompanyThe HartfordADJ9103856Sacramento District OfficeGranting PetitionJuly 3 2014 decisionStatutory time constraints

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05651 [187 AD3d 1662]

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 09, 2020

Shaw v. Scepter, Inc.

Mark A. Shaw, the plaintiff, sustained injuries while attempting to unload a man lift from a flatbed truck on the defendant Scepter, Inc.'s property. The incident occurred when the lift unexpectedly rolled off the flatbed, causing the lift's basket to fall and injure Shaw. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing Shaw's claims under Labor Law, which was subsequently appealed. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Shaw's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and a portion of his Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court found that issues of fact existed regarding whether the lift was defective and if the defendant had notice of such a defect, thus precluding summary judgment for either party on these specific claims.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentMan Lift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsWorker InjuryFlatbed TruckAppellate ReviewPremises Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 22, 2009

Shaw v. RPA Associates, LLC

Frederic E Shaw, an employee of Rockbusters, sustained injuries at a construction site when a dump truck he was operating capsized. He and his wife commenced an action seeking damages for personal injuries, alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6) against RPA Associates, LLC, AVR Realty, and Patriot Ridge Development, LLC. Patriot Ridge, the owner and developer, also brought a third-party action against Rockbusters for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment, dismissing both the complaint and the third-party complaint. On appeal, the court dismissed portions of the appeal and cross-appeal, finding the parties were not aggrieved, and affirmed the judgment insofar as reviewed, thereby upholding the dismissal of the claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentDump Truck AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party ActionIndemnification ClaimAppellate ReviewPremises Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Farren v. Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Plaintiff Ann Farren, administratrix of Kenneth Farren's estate, sued Defendant Shaw Environmental, Inc. for Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law violations, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Kenneth Farren, a laborer's foreman, reported sexual harassment by a coworker, Albert Puma, including sexually explicit and threatening remarks. Defendant disciplined Puma with a one-week suspension, but Farren eventually left the job due to alleged escalating harassment and was later terminated during a workforce reduction. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of gender-related harassment or disparate treatment, and no triable issue of fact regarding retaliation or constructive discharge. The court concluded that Puma's comments were expressions of animosity rather than sexual desire and that Farren's absenteeism was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawConstructive DischargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDisparate Treatment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Shaw

The petitioner, a Justice of the Supreme Court, Kings County, sought review of a determination by the State Commission on Judicial Conduct that censured him for misconduct. The Commission found that the petitioner had engaged in inappropriate and demeaning conduct, including making sexual comments and unwanted physical contact, with his secretary, Jacqueline Bland. Despite the petitioner's arguments that the allegations were fabricated and his presentation of character witnesses, the Commission adopted the Referee's credibility determination in favor of Bland. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Commission's decision, accepting the censure. The court also ruled that it lacked jurisdiction to review a subsequent motion by the petitioner to reconsider the determination based on newly discovered evidence.

Judicial MisconductCensureSexual HarassmentCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewNew York Court of AppealsJudicial EthicsDue ProcessNewly Discovered EvidenceJurisdiction

References

Case No. ADJ7516841

Regular

Mar 05, 2012

KAREN SHAW vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

This case concerns applicant Karen Shaw's claim for workers' compensation benefits after she slipped and broke her wrist and ankle while walking to a bookstore in San Francisco. The defendant, Cast & Crew Entertainment Services, Inc., argued the injury was not compensable, citing the going-and-coming rule and the bunkhouse rule. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, upholding the finding that Shaw's injury arose out of and in the course of her employment under the commercial traveler rule. The Board determined that Shaw's walk, while on an extended business trip and on call, was a reasonable expectancy of her employment, even if considered personal activity.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaren ShawCast & Crew Entertainment ServicesInc.Zurich North AmericaADJ7516841San Franciscogoing and coming rulebunkhouse ruleMotion Picture Health Plan

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Shaw v. Baldowski

Plaintiff Cynthia Shaw initiated an action against her coworker Gregory Baldowski, the New York State Department of Audit and Control, and other State defendants, alongside the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) and its officials. The case stemmed from an alleged disruptive coworker relationship and purported violations of workplace health and safety. The State defendants moved to dismiss several causes of action, and the CSEA defendants cross-moved for partial summary judgment. The plaintiff partially withdrew some claims and clarified others. The court granted CSEA's motion for partial summary judgment regarding allegations of health and safety violations against the union. It also dismissed the plaintiff's 8th cause of action against the State, ruling that she could not pursue claims for PESHA and OSHA violations directly due to specific statutory administrative remedies and the lack of a meritorious breach of duty of fair representation claim against CSEA. Consequently, the plaintiff's 7th cause of action against CSEA was dismissed. Furthermore, the court dismissed the plaintiff's 9th cause of action for retaliation under various state and federal laws, including Civil Service Law § 75-b, Labor Law § 215, and the First Amendment, citing insufficient evidence of adverse personnel action and a failure to meet arbitration requirements. As a result, only the plaintiff's first cause of action against the State for assault and battery remains to proceed.

Workplace harassmentRetaliationBreach of Collective Bargaining AgreementDuty of Fair RepresentationPublic Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA)Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)Civil Service Law § 75-bLabor Law § 215First Amendment retaliationSummary Judgment

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 18, 1995

Penny v. Winthrop-University Hospital

Wan Sun Penny, a 53-year-old Korean nurse, sued Winthrop-University Hospital under Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law, alleging discrimination based on race, national origin, and age, leading to her termination. The court addressed several pre-trial motions, denying Penny's motion to add a retaliation claim based on a conditional reinstatement offer and granting the hospital's motion to dismiss this claim. However, the court denied the hospital's motions to dismiss Penny's claims for compensatory and punitive damages under Title VII and her claims of continuing discrimination. Additionally, the court granted the hospital's motion to exclude certain letters and a memorandum related to settlement negotiations as evidence under Fed.R.Evid. 408.

Employment DiscriminationAge DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationPre-Trial MotionsEvidence ExclusionSettlement NegotiationsCivil Rights Act of 1964

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Piazza v. Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc.

Plaintiff, an employee of the Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority (BMHA), sustained injuries after falling through a hole in an apartment floor while removing trash. BMHA had contracted Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc., operating as Spectra Contract Flooring, for flooring work, who in turn subcontracted Gregory Simmons, doing business as Simmons Flooring and Remodeling. After the kitchen floor was noted as "spongy," Simmons cut out portions, creating the hole. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims. However, the appellate court modified this by denying those parts of the motions and reinstating the claims, finding defendants failed to establish they did not supervise the work, control the premises, or create/have notice of the dangerous condition. Conversely, the court affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, ruling that the plaintiff's trash removal duties were not connected to construction activities as defined by that statute. The order was thus modified and affirmed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewSubcontractor Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 09, 2017

Wrobel v. Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng'g of N.Y., P.C.

This case involves plaintiffs Piotr Wrobel and Tomasz Stankiewicz, employees of a subcontractor, who sued the general contractor, SLSCO, L.P., for breach of contract, alleging underpayment of prevailing wages on a public works project. SLSCO moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs were not direct third-party beneficiaries of the prime contract and that a contractual negation clause prevented such claims. The Supreme Court of New York County denied the motion, emphasizing New York's strong public policy to ensure prevailing wages for laborers. The court held that subcontractor employees are considered third-party beneficiaries of the prime contract's prevailing wage provisions, and a negation clause cannot override this common-law right.

Prevailing WageThird-Party BeneficiaryBreach of ContractPublic Works ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityLabor Law EnforcementContractual Negation ClausePublic PolicyMotion to Dismiss

References

Showing 1-10 of 45 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. ADJ9103856

Regular

Sep 24, 2014

OCTAVIO FILIPPINI vs. PILLSBURY, WINTHROP, SHAW, PITTMAN, LLP, TWIN CITY FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

References

Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05651 [187 AD3d 1662]

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 09, 2020

Shaw v. Scepter, Inc.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentMan Lift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code ViolationsWorker InjuryFlatbed TruckAppellate ReviewPremises Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 22, 2009

Shaw v. RPA Associates, LLC

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentDump Truck AccidentSummary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsCommon-Law NegligenceThird-Party ActionIndemnification ClaimAppellate ReviewPremises Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Farren v. Shaw Environmental, Inc.

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Shaw

Judicial MisconductCensureSexual HarassmentCredibility DeterminationAppellate ReviewNew York Court of AppealsJudicial EthicsDue ProcessNewly Discovered EvidenceJurisdiction

References

Case No. ADJ7516841

Regular

Mar 05, 2012

KAREN SHAW vs. CAST & CREW ENTERTAINMENT SERVICES, INC., ZURICH NORTH AMERICA

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaren ShawCast & Crew Entertainment ServicesInc.Zurich North AmericaADJ7516841San Franciscogoing and coming rulebunkhouse ruleMotion Picture Health Plan

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Shaw v. Baldowski

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Apr 18, 1995

Penny v. Winthrop-University Hospital

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Piazza v. Shaw Contract Flooring Services, Inc.

Personal InjuryNegligenceLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryAppellate ReviewSubcontractor Liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

May 09, 2017

Wrobel v. Shaw Envtl. & Infrastructure Eng'g of N.Y., P.C.

References

Showing 1-10 of 45 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.