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

Claim of Macareno v. Son Yeng Produce, Inc.

A claimant sustained injuries while working as a delivery person for Son Yeng Produce, Inc., subsequently filing a workers' compensation claim. After several hearings, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship, awarding the claimant a 10% schedule loss of use of the left foot and confirming the employment relationship. Son Yeng Produce, Inc. sought a rehearing from the Workers' Compensation Board, arguing lack of notice for a crucial hearing and disputing the employment relationship. The Board denied this application, noting that Son Yeng had proper notification and prior opportunities to contest the employment. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no arbitrary, capricious, or abusive discretion in the denial.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewAdministrative ProcedureRehearing ApplicationNotice RequirementEmployment StatusCausal RelationshipSchedule Loss of UseJudicial DiscretionDue Process
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Double Green Produce, Inc. v. Forum Supermarket Inc.

Plaintiff Double Green Produce, Inc. sued Defendants Forum Supermarket Inc. and Hong Wen Cai for failure to pay for wholesale produce under the Perishable Agricultural Commodities Act (PACA) and other claims. After Defendants defaulted, Plaintiff moved for default judgment. Although initially recommended for denial due to jurisdictional concerns, the Court allowed Plaintiff to submit additional information. Upon review, the Court found Forum to be a PACA 'dealer' and that Plaintiff had preserved its trust rights. The Court determined Defendants' default was willful and that Defendant Cai was personally liable for dissipating trust assets. Consequently, the Court granted Plaintiff's motion for default judgment, awarding $23,080.75 in damages, $5579.82 in prejudgment interest, and $4074.25 in attorneys' fees, totaling $32,734.82.

PACAPerishable Agricultural CommoditiesDefault JudgmentBreach of ContractStatutory TrustFiduciary DutyInterstate CommerceWholesale ProduceDamages AwardPrejudgment Interest
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donovan v. Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Ass'n

Plaintiff Michael H. Donovan initiated legal action against Eastern Milk Producers Cooperative Association, Inc., Milk Marketing, Inc., and individuals Lewis Gardner and Edwin Schoen, alleging breach of employment contract and age discrimination under both the ADEA and New York Human Rights Law. Donovan contended his termination was age-based, while defendants cited performance issues. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, identifying genuine issues of material fact regarding both the age discrimination claim and the breach of contract. Additionally, the court granted in part and denied in part Donovan's cross-motion for summary judgment on various affirmative defenses, affirming individual liability under New York Human Rights Law but dismissing it under the ADEA.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ContractSummary Judgment MotionNew York Human Rights LawADEAIndividual LiabilityBoard DecisionBreach of ContractMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPretext
References
25
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02519 [182 AD3d 966]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2020

Matter of Martinez v. New York Produce

Claimant Carlos Martinez, a delivery person, filed for workers' compensation benefits in April 2017 due to work-related head injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a traumatic brain injury but later denied an amendment to include bilateral knee injuries. Martinez, represented by counsel, sought Board review of the WCLJ's August 2018 decision. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this application, citing non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) as it failed to specify when an objection was interposed. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the application incomplete.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural ComplianceBoard RegulationsApplication for ReviewForm RB-89Objection TimingWCLJ DecisionTraumatic Brain Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1997

Chopra v. Display Producers, Inc.

Madhu Chopra, an assembly line worker for Display Producers, Inc., sued her employer and supervisor Wims Fyilsiame for sexual harassment and discrimination under Title VII. Chopra alleged that Fyilsiame sexually harassed her after his promotion in 1992, making her working conditions intolerable and leading to her termination in 1996. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that Chopra's claims were subject to arbitration under a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act. The court denied the defendants' motion, holding that an arbitration clause in a CBA does not preclude an individual from litigating statutory claims under Title VII, distinguishing Gilmer from Alexander v. Gardner-Denver. The court also concluded that Title VII claims are not preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA.

Sexual HarassmentEmployment DiscriminationTitle VIICollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseSummary JudgmentFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActIndividual Statutory RightsUnion Representation
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Display Producers, Inc. v. Shulton, Inc.

The case involves Display Producers, Inc. (DPI) suing Shulton, Inc. and Ledan, Inc. concerning the design and advertising of a point-of-sale display for 'Cie' perfume. DPI alleges that Ledan falsely claimed to have created the display, violating the Lanham Act, and that Shulton is liable for contributory infringement by enabling Ledan's false representations. Shulton moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing DPI failed to state a claim under the Lanham Act because it did not allege Shulton knew or anticipated Ledan's wrongful conduct. The court granted Shulton's motion to dismiss, ruling that merely providing the opportunity for wrongdoing is insufficient for contributory infringement liability, and denied DPI's cross-motion to amend the complaint, subsequently dismissing pendent state claims.

Lanham Actcontributory infringementfalse advertisingreverse palming-offmotion to dismissFed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6)Fed.R.Civ.P. 56Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a)design disputeproduct display
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leyh v. Property Clerk of the City of New York Police Department

Plaintiff Evelyn Leyh initiated a federal action against the New York City Police Department and its Property Clerk, seeking the return of her seized automobile and alleging constitutional violations. She claimed deprivation of property without due process, that the forfeiture provision of the New York City Administrative Code constituted a bill of attainder, and malicious prosecution. While a state court had previously ruled in her favor regarding the forfeiture, the federal court addressed her remaining claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due process and bill of attainder claims, upholding the constitutionality of the property seizure procedures based on prior federal rulings. Additionally, the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it as all federal claims had been resolved.

Due ProcessBill of AttainderMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentCivil ForfeitureAutomobile Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Supplemental JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law Claims
References
13
Case No. 13-CV-7588 (RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

New York State Court Clerks Ass'n v. Unified Court System

The New York State Court Clerks Association and Monica Shaw Burns filed a lawsuit against several New York State Judges, the Unified Court System (UCS), and the Office of Court Administration (OCA), alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) due to uncompensated overtime work. The defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, citing Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity. The court granted the motions, ruling that the Eleventh Amendment bars claims against UCS, OCA, and the State Judges in their official capacities, as Congress did not abrogate state sovereign immunity under the FLSA. The court also found that plaintiffs failed to adequately allege that the State Judges were 'employers' under the FLSA's 'economic reality' test, and that employees cannot seek injunctive relief under FLSA. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Overtime WagesFair Labor Standards ActEleventh Amendment ImmunitySovereign ImmunityDeclaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionState Judicial OfficialsOfficial Capacity SuitEconomic Reality Test
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mead v. Brotherhood of Railway, Airline & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees

A General Chairman of the Brotherhood of Railway, Airline and Steamship Clerks (B.R.A.C.) sought an injunction against the International Union to prevent the transfer of funds from local lodge treasuries to a new Express Division in New York City, alleging a violation of 29 U.S.C. § 501(a) due to potential fund mismanagement. Defendants moved to dismiss, claiming the transfers were approved and lacked proof of present fiscal mismanagement. The court, adopting a restrictive view of Section 501 focused solely on financial dealings, determined that the plaintiff's claims, without evidence of current mismanagement, did not establish a legally cognizable cause of action. Therefore, the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint was granted.

Union DisputesLabor UnionsInter-union Funds29 U.S.C. 501Injunctive ReliefMotion DismissalRestrictive Statutory InterpretationFinancial OversightOrganizational ReorganizationFederal Labor Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 374 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