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
Jun 09, 2011

In re the Certification as Qualified Adoptive Parents Pursuant to Domestic Relations Law § 115-d

This case concerns Joanna K. and Scottye K.'s application to waive the mandatory certification as qualified adoptive parents for Jeremiah B., the biological son of Careese B. The K.s received physical custody of Jeremiah shortly after his birth in March 2009, prior to obtaining the required judicial certification, thereby violating New York's adoption statute. The court reviewed the convoluted history, including Careese B.'s judicial consent to adoption and the K.s' temporary custody order. However, the court denied the waiver application, emphasizing the critical importance of pre-placement certification to protect children and prevent unregulated transfers of custody. The decision stated that the petitioners failed to show good cause for waiver and that a retroactive approval of non-compliance would undermine legislative intent, although the K.s retain legal and physical custody pending the adoption petition.

Adoption Law CompliancePrivate-Placement Adoption RequirementsPre-Placement CertificationWaiver Application DenialChild Welfare LegislationFamily Law ProcedureJudicial DiscretionStatutory InterpretationParental Fitness StandardsCustody Transfer
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2007

Kudinov v. Kel-Tech Construction Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order that partially granted plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and denied the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, emphasizing that the burden of establishing class certification criteria rests with the party seeking it, and the class certification statute should be liberally construed. Despite inconsistencies in the class representative's testimony and variations in damages among different trades, the court found sufficient evidence for numerosity and commonality of claims. The decision reiterates that the inquiry into a claim's merit for class certification is limited and not a substitute for summary judgment or trial.

Class ActionClass CertificationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionEvidentiary BasisNumerosityCommonalityWage DisputesUnderpayment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parker v. Time Warner Entertainment Co., L.P.

This Memorandum & Order addresses plaintiffs' objections to a Magistrate Judge's recommendations regarding class certification. Plaintiffs Andrew Parker and Eric De-Brauwere sued Time Warner Cable, alleging violations of the Cable Communications Policy Act of 1984 by disclosing subscriber information. District Judge Glasser adopted the Magistrate Judge's findings, denying class certification for monetary claims under Rule 23(b)(2) due to the predominance of monetary relief, and denying full certification under Rule 23(b)(3) because a class action was deemed not superior given the statutory provisions for individual remedies. The court also declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the plaintiffs' state law claims. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' objections to the Magistrate Judge's Report & Recommendation were denied, and the recommendations were adopted.

Class ActionClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Cable Communications Policy ActSubscriber PrivacyMonetary ReliefInjunctive ReliefEastern District of New YorkMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duchene v. Michael L. Cetta, Inc.

Plaintiffs, current and former waiters at Sparks Steak House, initiated litigation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the New York Labor Law, alleging the unlawful diversion of their tips. Following a previous order for the FLSA claim to proceed as a collective action, the plaintiffs moved for class action certification for all waiters employed by Sparks from June 14, 2000, onwards. The defendant opposed this, challenging supplemental jurisdiction and class certification requirements. However, the Court exercised supplemental jurisdiction and found that the class met all necessary criteria, including numerosity and superiority. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs’ motion for class certification.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawTip DiversionWage and Hour ClaimsCollective ActionSupplemental JurisdictionRule 23(b)(3)Numerosity RequirementSuperiority Requirement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Flores v. Anjost Corp.

Plaintiffs filed a class action lawsuit against Anjost Corporation and its principals, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and the New York Labor Law, including issues with minimum wage, overtime pay, tip withholding, and uniform costs. The court addressed Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, following a prior conditional certification of an FLSA collective action. Evaluating the proposed classes under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the court found that the requirements for numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were largely met. Consequently, the court granted the motion for class certification in a modified form, establishing three specific classes: a Tipped Employee Class, a Spread of Hours and Wage Statement Class, and a Uniform Claims Class. The decision also included orders for the defendants to disclose class member information and for both parties to jointly prepare a proposed class notice.

Class ActionFair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)New York Labor Law (NYLL)Wage and Hour ClaimsOvertime WagesMinimum WageTip WithholdingUniform CostsWage StatementsSpread of Hours Premium
References
71
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re David N.

The petitioners sought a preadoption certificate to adopt an infant from Chile, required for federal immigration. The court requested a detailed breakdown of the $10,000 paid to Mrs. Z., a facilitator, for adoption expenses. The provided information was deemed insufficient, lacking evidence that recipients of funds complied with Social Services Law § 374 (6). The court concluded that the transactions likely involved financial gain, violating New York State's strong public policy against child trafficking. Consequently, the application for a preadoption certificate was denied, as it was not in the child's best interests.

International AdoptionPreadoption CertificateChild TraffickingPublic Policy ViolationDomestic Relations LawSocial Services LawAdoption ExpensesJudicial ReviewInfant AdoptionIntercountry Adoption
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGlone v. Contract Callers, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael McGlone initiated a Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) action against Contract Callers, Inc. (CCI), Michael McGuire, and William Tim Wertz, alleging unpaid overtime for work performed before and after recorded workdays and during meal breaks. McGlone sought conditional certification for a nationwide collective action of Field Service Representatives (FSRs), asserting a common policy of wage violations, including uncompensated preparatory and concluding tasks, and automatic meal break deductions despite working through them. The court applied a two-step analysis for FLSA collective actions, focusing on the lenient "notice stage" standard. While the plaintiff claimed company-wide misconduct, his evidence for a nationwide class was deemed insufficient, relying primarily on "information and belief." Consequently, the court denied conditional certification for a nationwide class but granted it for FSRs employed in CCI's New York Division, where McGlone demonstrated direct personal knowledge of the alleged violations and supervisory directives. Additionally, the statute of limitations was equitably tolled as of the motion's filing date due to the court's processing time.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationOvertime PayWage ViolationsMeal BreaksUncompensated WorkField Service RepresentativesEquitable TollingNew York Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Nissequogue v. Suffolk County Department of Civil Service

The Village of Nissequogue initiated a special proceeding against the Suffolk County Department of Civil Service after the department refused to certify the payroll for police officers Dennis McHugh and Roger Leigh. The officers, appointed in 1982 and 1984, had served commendably despite not being appointed from an official eligibility list. The department, aware of the irregular appointments since 1986, did not act until 1989 when it blocked payroll certification, prompting this legal challenge. The court examined the applicability of a 1984 amendment to Civil Service Law § 100 (5), which presumes proper appointment after three years, even for initially irregular appointments. The court ruled that the department could not refuse payroll certification, denied the department's motion to dismiss, and granted the officers' cross-petition for payment, citing the department's inaction despite prior knowledge.

Civil Service LawPayroll CertificationPolice OfficersIllegal AppointmentConstitutional LawSpecial ProceedingSuffolk CountyMerit SystemProbationary PeriodStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2000

Simon v. Philip Morris Inc.

This memorandum and order addresses the preliminary issues of class certification in a nationwide smoker class action. Plaintiffs seek to certify a class of individuals who developed lung cancer due to smoking defendants' cigarettes. The defendants, referred to as "Tobacco," challenge the claims' substantive and factual viability, as well as the suitability for class action, citing varied state laws under the Erie doctrine and due process concerns. Senior District Judge Weinstein, acknowledging the complexities, reserves the decision on class certification and grants a preliminary evidentiary hearing. The court explores potential approaches to manage diverse state laws and discusses the necessity of plaintiffs demonstrating a feasible trial structure for a large class.

Class ActionSmoker Class ActionTobacco LitigationLung CancerClass CertificationRule 23Erie DoctrineConflict of LawsMultistate LitigationDue Process
References
12
Case No. 12-01051
Regular Panel Decision

Schuman v. Connaught Group, Ltd. (In re Connaught Group, Ltd.)

Plaintiff Martina Schuman, on behalf of herself and approximately 100 former employees, filed an adversary proceeding seeking class certification for claims under the Federal and New York State WARN Acts against The Connaught Group Creditors’ Liquidating Trust. The claims alleged that employees were terminated without the legally required 60 days' notice on or about January 30, 2012, following the debtor The Connaught Group, Ltd.'s bankruptcy filing. The Trust opposed, arguing inadequate representation due to differing priorities for pre-petition versus post-petition claims and that a class action was inferior to the bankruptcy claims process. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Stuart M. Bernstein of the Southern District of New York, found that the plaintiff met the criteria for numerosity, commonality, and typicality under Rule 23(a). It ruled that no conflict of interest existed between pre-petition and post-petition claimants as the confirmed bankruptcy plan provided equal treatment for both administrative and priority claims, and the class action was deemed superior given the early filing and the purpose of Rule 23 to avoid multiple individual claims. The motion for class certification was therefore granted.

Class ActionWARN ActBankruptcy LawCreditorsMass LayoffEmployee RightsClass CertificationStatute of LimitationsBar DateAdversary Proceeding
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 442 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