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. ADJ19479057
Regular
Aug 26, 2025

GERALD TORRES vs. PRO DEO FOUNDATION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Defendant, Pro Deo Foundation and State Compensation Insurance Fund, petitioned for reconsideration of a WCJ's decision, which found Gerald Torres to be an employee of Pro Deo Foundation. Defendant contended Torres was a volunteer or independent contractor and should be judicially estopped from claiming workers' compensation due to a prior settlement. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's finding of employment, emphasizing the WCJ's credibility determinations and concluding that the defendant failed to satisfy the 'ABC' test for independent contractor status. The Board timely acted on and subsequently denied the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' CompensationPro Deo FoundationState Compensation Insurance FundGerald TorresADJ19479057Petition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrdersEmployee StatusVolunteerIndependent Contractor
References
7
Case No. 96-CV-3879, 96-CV-6310
Regular Panel Decision

Schuloff v. Queens College Foundation, Inc.

Plaintiff Anita Schuloff filed two separate lawsuits against Queens College Foundation, Inc. and Brooklyn College Foundation, Inc., which were consolidated due to identical legal issues. Schuloff alleged violations of 26 U.S.C. § 6104 for the defendants' failure to promptly provide federal tax returns for public inspection, along with claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Freedom of Information Law. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The Court granted the motions to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), ruling that 26 U.S.C. § 6104 does not create a private cause of action, thus precluding the related § 1983 claims. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, dismissing both complaints in their entirety.

Private Cause of ActionTax-Exempt Organizations26 U.S.C. § 610442 U.S.C. § 1983Rule 12(b)(6)Motion to DismissFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistorySupplemental Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Aid Foundation, Inc.

The application for judicial approval of the certificate of incorporation for Aid Foundation, Inc. was denied. The court found the name "Aid" problematic and the stated charitable purposes vague and unclear. A more significant objection was that the proposed corporation, acting as an intermediary between donors and recipients, would duplicate existing charitable agencies. The judge emphasized the importance of established and well-organized charitable organizations and the potential for independent intermediaries to jeopardize organized efforts, even if honestly managed.

Corporate Name ApprovalCharitable IncorporationMembership Corporations LawVague Charitable PurposesDuplicative CharityJudicial DiscretionNon-Profit RegulationFoundation ApprovalPublic InterestOrganizational Efficiency
References
4
Case No. 96 Civ. 4126
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2003

Penguin Books U.S.A., Inc. v. New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Foundation for A Course in Miracles (FACIM) and Foundation for Inner Peace (FIP) sued New Christian Church of Full Endeavor, Ltd. (NCCFE) and Endeavor Academy for copyright infringement of 'A Course in Miracles.' The central issue was whether the work entered the public domain due to extensive pre-publication distribution without copyright notice. The court found that hundreds of uncopyrighted copies were distributed without sufficient limitations on who received them or how they could be used. Consequently, the court concluded that the work was generally published before its official copyright registration, rendering the copyright invalid. Judgment was entered in favor of the defendants, dismissing the copyright.

Copyright LawPublic DomainPre-publication DistributionCopyright InfringementIntellectual PropertyReligious TextsSpiritual TeachingsManuscript DistributionLiterary WorkLicensing Agreement
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Padilla v. Buffalo State College Foundation, Inc.

This action involves a plaintiff who sued Buffalo State College Foundation, d/b/a Families United, for employment discrimination. The plaintiff alleged that the defendant withdrew a job offer because of her association with her disabled child, in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the New York State Human Rights Law. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of discriminatory intent, partially relying on the "same hirer, same firer" inference. However, the court denied the defendant's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether the defendant's stated reason for withdrawing the offer was a pretext for discrimination. The court emphasized the early stage of the employment relationship and the unique circumstances of association discrimination claims under the ADA.

Employment DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Association DiscriminationSummary JudgmentMcDonnell Douglas TestPretext for DiscriminationDisabled ChildFamily ResponsibilitiesHiring PracticesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56
References
23
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07367 [211 AD3d 1582]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2022

Bregaudit v. Loretto Health & Rehabilitation Ctr.

Plaintiff Edison Bregaudit sought damages after slipping on ice at a facility owned by Loretto Health and Rehabilitation Center, which contracted Pro Scapes, Inc. for snow removal. Pro Scapes initially moved for summary judgment, arguing it owed no duty of care to the plaintiff, a motion initially granted by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed parts of the lower court's decision. The Appellate Division found a question of fact existed regarding whether Pro Scapes negligently created or exacerbated the dangerous icy condition by using inadequate deicer, which could lead to refreezing. Consequently, the court denied parts of Pro Scapes' motion for summary judgment and reinstated the amended complaint and cross-claim for common-law indemnification against Pro Scapes.

Snow and IceSlip and FallPremises LiabilitySnow Removal ContractSummary JudgmentDuty of CareTort LiabilityExacerbated ConditionNegligenceRefreezing
References
16
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2012

Williams v. Orange & Sullivan Excavating Corp.

This case concerns an appeal challenging the approval of a personal injury settlement nunc pro tunc under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Supreme Court, Orange County, initially granted the petition for approval, and the appellate court affirmed this decision. The ruling reiterates that employees must obtain either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of settlement to maintain workers' compensation benefits. However, a nunc pro tunc order can still be granted after three months if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the employee's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced. The appellate court concluded that the Supreme Court appropriately exercised its discretion in granting the nunc pro tunc approval, aligning with established legal precedent regarding such petitions.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Personal Injury SettlementNunc Pro TuncJudicial ApprovalWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAppellate AffirmationDelay ExcuseReasonable SettlementCarrier PrejudiceJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rudolf Steiner Fellowship Foundation v. De Luccia

The Zoning Board of Appeals of the Village of Chestnut Ridge appealed a decision that annulled their denial of a use variance to the Rudolph Steiner Fellowship Foundation. The lower courts ruled that the Foundation had a preexisting nonconforming use that could be extended, citing Matter of Syracuse Aggregate Corp. v Weise. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the Foundation's use for an intergenerational community with a nursing home was not a unique nonconforming use like quarrying, and thus could not be expanded as a matter of right over the entire parcel. The court also rejected the estoppel argument. The case was remitted to Supreme Court to consider whether the denial of the use variance was arbitrary and capricious.

Zoning LawUse VarianceNonconforming UseExtension of Nonconforming UseSpecial PermitZoning Board of AppealsIntergenerational CommunityNursing HomeCo-worker ApartmentsVested Rights
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site when, while working, he was struck in the back by an uninstalled door frame. He commenced an action against Wood-Pro, the company hired to install the door frames, and Summerville, the manufacturer of the door frame. The jury found no negligence on the part of Wood-Pro. The court also properly granted Summerville’s motion to dismiss the action as against it, as there was no evidence of negligence or violation of duty. Plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) against both defendants were also found unavailing, as neither had authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, and they were not owners or general contractors.

Construction InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictComparative FaultMotion to DismissStatutory DutyContractual Duty
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 615 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