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. 2018 NY Slip Op 08248 [167 AD3d 415]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2018

Barklee 94 LLC v. Oliver

Barklee 94 LLC appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, which dismissed their complaint against Augustus Oliver et al. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion to reopen discovery. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding several causes of action time-barred, including those related to building code violations, notice of excavation, and a party wall easement. The court also dismissed a roof wire/trespass claim, noting the wire was installed by independent contractors. Additionally, a claim seeking completion of a decorative panel was barred by the doctrine of law of the case and the statute of limitations. The plaintiff's claim regarding elevator anchor bolts was also rejected due to insufficient evidence.

building code violationsstatute of limitationssummary judgmentindependent contractor liabilityparty wallencroachment claimappellate reviewproperty lawcivil procedureNew York County
References
4
Case No. 94 Civ. 654 (MBM), 94 Civ. 2978 (MBM)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 1995

Bluebird Partners, LP v. First Fidelity Bank

Bluebird Partners, L.P., a secondary purchaser of equipment trust interests for Continental Airlines, sued indenture trustees and their law firms for alleged violations of the Trust Indenture Act (TIA) and state law. Plaintiff claimed defendants failed to prudently protect certificate holders' interests during Continental's bankruptcy by not acting timely on adequate protection motions. Defendants moved to dismiss, arguing Bluebird Partners lacked standing as a secondary purchaser because federal TIA claims do not automatically transfer with the security. The court granted the motion to dismiss, holding that under federal common law, TIA claims do not automatically transfer to subsequent purchasers who were not injured at the time of the alleged wrongdoing, thus denying standing to Bluebird Partners. The court declined to retain jurisdiction over the pendent state-law claims.

Trust Indenture ActStandingSecondary PurchaserSecurities LawBankruptcy CodeAutomatic StayAdequate ProtectionFiduciary DutyBreach of ContractNegligence
References
22
Case No. ADJ4459609 (RDG 0084433) ADJ165897 (RDG 0084432) ADJ350688 (VNO 0548588)
Regular
Aug 13, 2009

BILLY EPPS vs. TRIANGLE ENVIRONMENTAL, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves an applicant denied vocational rehabilitation benefits by the WCJ. The applicant argued the Rehabilitation Unit's (RU) delay constituted nonfeasance and deliberate indifference, entitling him to benefits despite the repeal of the relevant statute. The Board denied reconsideration, finding no evidence to support the applicant's allegations of RU misconduct. The Board also highlighted the applicant's own significant delays in pursuing his claim, which prejudiced his ability to secure benefits before the law changed.

Vocational Rehabilitation BenefitsRehabilitation Unit (RU)NonfeasanceDeliberate IndifferenceWanton DisregardDue ProcessReckless ActionsQualified Injured WorkerLabor Code Section 139.5Petition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ769963 (VNO 0196669)
Regular
Nov 25, 2013

GEORGE GIO vs. RAY WANG also known as CHING WANG, RAYMOND LLORENS also known as THOMAS STRONG, doing business as RAYMCO BUILDERS, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND

This case involves an applicant seeking enforcement of a Rehabilitation Unit (RU) determination for vocational rehabilitation benefits and retroactive VRMA, issued on December 31, 2008. The WCJ initially found the WCAB lacked jurisdiction to enforce the RU determination, which was issued after the critical January 1, 2009, deadline for WCAB jurisdiction over such matters. The Appeals Board rescinded the WCJ's decision because it was improperly made at a Mandatory Settlement Conference over the applicant's objection. The case is remanded for a new hearing before a different WCJ to address the substantive issue of enforceability.

Rehabilitation UnitVocational Rehabilitation Maintenance AllowanceMandatory Settlement ConferenceEnforceabilityJurisdictionRescinded DecisionReassignmentLabor CodeAppeals Board RulesDeclaration of Readiness
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tlacoapa v. Carregal

This case involves Gerardo Tlacoapa (Plaintiff) against Robert G. Car-regal d/b/a The Rockologists (Defendant) for unpaid wages and expenses under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Following a bench trial in December 2004, the court found the Defendant liable. This decision addresses the Plaintiff's subsequent motions for damages, attorneys' fees, and costs. The court granted the Plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint, adding Robert G. Carregal, Inc. and The Rockologists, Inc. as alter-ego defendants. The Plaintiff was awarded $7,713.50 in compensatory damages for unpaid wages and overtime, plus an equivalent amount in liquidated damages, totaling $15,427.00. However, the request for reimbursement for uniform cleaning expenses was denied. Furthermore, the court granted attorneys' fees and costs, but significantly reduced the requested amounts, ultimately awarding $37,558.00 in attorneys' fees and $2,669.94 in costs, for a combined total of $40,227.94 for fees and costs.

FLSA violationsUnpaid wagesOvertime compensationLiquidated damagesAttorneys' feesLitigation costsAlter ego liabilityEmployer recordkeepingLabor Law violationsJudicial discretion
References
32
Case No. 94-21
Regular Panel Decision

Van Wie v. Kirk

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated by the petitioner, Van Wie, seeking to prohibit his prosecution for grand larceny and insurance fraud, and to vacate confessions of judgment and an affidavit withdrawing his workers’ compensation claim. This follows a previous decision that vacated his guilty plea due to ineffective assistance of counsel. The court denied the petition insofar as it sought to prohibit the criminal trial, asserting that such relief was not warranted and the prosecution was within the respondents' jurisdiction. However, the court granted the vacatur of the confessions of judgment and the affidavit of withdrawal, deeming them integral to the now-vacated guilty plea. The opinion also criticized the District Attorney for a potential dereliction of ethical obligations.

Workers' Compensation FraudGrand Larceny ProsecutionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingWrit of ProhibitionIneffective Assistance of CounselGuilty Plea VacaturCollateral Estoppel InapplicabilityJudicial JurisdictionProsecutorial EthicsMedical Evidence in Workers' Compensation
References
21
Case No. 94 Civ. 0253
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 2002

Sank v. City University of New York

Plaintiff Diane Sank filed a pro se complaint against City University of New York (CUNY) and City College of the City of New York (CCNY) under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She alleged gender, race, religion, and age discrimination, and retaliation after being removed as chairperson of the Anthropology Department. Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the remaining Title VII claims. The court denied the motion regarding the discrimination claim, finding a material issue of fact. The court also denied the motion concerning the retaliation claim related to the improper relocation of Sank's laboratory, but dismissed the retaliation claim based on alleged threats to take her computer.

Title VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CasePretextAdverse Employment Action
References
37
Case No. 94 Civ. 5279
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1996

Liriano v. Hobart Corp.

This case addresses motions for judgment as a matter of law filed by defendants Hobart Corporation and Super Associated, and a motion for amendment of the retrial verdict by plaintiff Liriano, following Liriano's severe on-the-job injury from a meat grinder. The court denied the defendants' motions, affirming the jury's prior findings regarding negligence and liability. The court also granted Liriano's motion to amend the retrial verdict to include past medical expenses, citing that the jury's original finding of zero past medical expenses was inconsistent with the evidence. The opinion extensively discusses the application of Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 50(b) and 59(a), and Federal Rules of Evidence 702 regarding expert testimony under the Daubert standard.

Product LiabilityNegligenceWarning LabelsExpert TestimonyComparative NegligenceRule 50(b) MotionRule 59(a) New TrialDamagesMedical ExpensesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. 94 Civ. 2336
Regular Panel Decision

Mohamed v. Marriott International, Inc.

Ahmed Mohamed, a profoundly deaf individual, sued Marriott International, Inc. and Marriott Corporation under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Human Rights Law for wrongful discharge. Marriott moved for summary judgment, arguing Mohamed should be judicially estopped from asserting an ADA claim because he had previously applied for Social Security Disability Insurance Benefits (SSDI), stating he was unable to work. The court denied Marriott's motion. It ruled that judicial estoppel was inappropriate given the differing legal standards between ADA and SSDI, the nature of SSDI administrative determinations (paper application for a listed disability), and the policy goals of the ADA which encourage disabled individuals to seek employment. The court found ample evidence that Mohamed was able to perform the essential functions of his job.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Judicial EstoppelSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationSocial Security Disability Insurance (SSDI)New York State Human Rights LawEmployment LawQualified Individual with a DisabilityReasonable AccommodationDeafness
References
32
Case No. 94 Civ. 4397
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1998

Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc.

Plaintiff Linda Hamilton, widow of George Hamilton, filed an asbestos claim against several defendants, including Atlas Turner Inc., in the Southern District of New York in 1994. After a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, defendant Atlas filed post-trial motions, including a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court previously denied the jurisdictional motion with leave to renew. Upon a fuller record, the court now grants Atlas's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that New York law provides a basis for exercising jurisdiction over Atlas under CPLR § 301 ("doing business") or CPLR § 302 (long-arm statute). The court concluded that Hamilton's injury did not occur in New York, but in Virginia, where his asbestos exposure took place, thus failing the long-arm statute's requirements. Consequently, the other post-trial motions from Atlas were not considered.

Personal JurisdictionAsbestos ExposureMotion to DismissDiversity JurisdictionNew York CPLR 301New York CPLR 302Tortious ActDoing BusinessLong-Arm StatuteSitus of Injury
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 37 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