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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01290 [180 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2020

Reyes v. Roman Catholic Church of St. Raymond

The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County. The case involved plaintiff Felipe Reyes, a special employee of The Roman Catholic Church of St. Raymond, whose Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed based on Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (6). The court also denied summary judgment on St. Raymond's third-party contractual indemnification claim against ABM Janitorial Services-Northeast, Inc., due to an unresolved issue of fact regarding ABM's negligence. The decision concluded that Reyes's claim against St. Raymond was barred due to his special employee status.

Special Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6)Contractual IndemnificationThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityNegligence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pixley v. Raymond Corp.

The petitioner initiated a proceeding under Executive Law section 298 to challenge an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, dated May 4, 1977. This order had affirmed an earlier decision by the State Division of Human Rights, which dismissed the petitioner's sex discrimination complaint against Raymond Corporation for lack of probable cause. The petitioner alleged that she was denied the option of a voluntary layoff offered to male employees and was required to perform work in a more difficult manner. Both the Division and the Appeal Board found no probable cause, determining that the petitioner was offered the layoff option but refused due to unemployment benefit concerns, and that male workers performed similar tasks. This court reviewed the record and concluded that the dismissal was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, thus upholding the previous findings without requiring a formal hearing. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Sex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationProbable CauseAdministrative ReviewVoluntary LayoffWork TransferTerminationHuman Rights LawAbuse of DiscretionJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04412
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2017

Aprile-Sci v. St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church

Kathleen Aprile-Sci, a volunteer Eucharistic Minister, allegedly tripped and fell at St. Raymond of Penyafort R.C. Church. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determined her injury was work-related and she was entitled to benefits, a decision she did not object to. Subsequently, Aprile-Sci and her husband commenced a personal injury action against the church. The church moved for summary judgment based on the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the WCB's final and conclusive determination barred a collateral attack in a plenary action.

Workers' Compensation LawExclusivity DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewVolunteer StatusPersonal Injury ClaimWCB DeterminationCollateral AttackTriable Issues of FactDiocese Insurance
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 20, 2008

RAYMOND WEIL, SA v. Theron

Plaintiff Raymond Weil, S.A. sued Charlize Theron and Denver & Delilah Films, Inc. for alleged breaches of an endorsement contract and for fraud related to Theron's promotion of luxury watches. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment. It dismissed the fraud claim in its entirety. For the breach of contract claims, the court found the Montblanc incident curable and thus not actionable, but granted partial summary judgment to Raymond Weil regarding the Dior watch incident, finding Theron liable for breach. Other alleged breaches involving Chopard, Cartier, and Breil Milano were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial to determine damages for the Dior watch breach, and motions related to expert testimony were conditionally denied, awaiting revised reports.

Breach of ContractFraudulent InducementSummary Judgment MotionCelebrity Endorsement AgreementExclusivity Clause DisputeMaterial BreachCure PeriodDamages AssessmentExpert Witness TestimonyCorporate Agency
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Woodward v. Raymond James Financial, Inc.

Plaintiff John Woodward filed a class action complaint alleging that Raymond James Financial, Inc. (RJF) and its executives engaged in a scheme to defraud shareholders by making material misrepresentations about the adequacy of loan loss reserves for its subsidiary, Raymond James Bank. The complaint detailed an alleged fraudulent scheme involving purposeful underfunding of loan loss reserves, concealment of risky lending practices, and misrepresentation of management styles and SEC filings. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the Section 10(b) claim lacked actionable misrepresentations, adequate scienter, and loss causation, and that the Section 20(a) claims lacked a primary violation. The court found that most alleged misrepresentations were non-actionable puffery or lacked specificity, with only statements regarding independent underwriting being considered actionable. However, the court concluded that the plaintiff failed to plead scienter with the required particularity, as most allegations were common corporate motives or lacked specific supporting facts. Consequently, the Defendants' motion to dismiss was granted, and the amended complaint was dismissed without prejudice.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissPleading StandardsPSLRARule 9(b)ScienterMaterial MisrepresentationLoan Loss ReservesFinancial Institutions
References
16
Case No. CV-23-0067
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Raymond Garrow

Claimant, a delivery driver, sustained a left arm injury in 2004, leading to a biceps rupture and subsequent surgeries. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled he was entitled to a 33⅓% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm, applying special consideration 6 of the 2018 Workers' Compensation Guidelines for Determining Impairment. Claimant appealed, arguing that this Court's prior decision in Matter of Blue v New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs. applied, allowing for a higher SLU award due to additional diagnoses like a torn rotator cuff. The Appellate Division disagreed with the Board's narrow interpretation of Blue, finding it applicable to shoulder injuries as well as knee injuries, and remitted the matter for a proper assessment of medical evidence regarding claimant's additional deficits.

Schedule Loss of UseSLU AwardLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureRotator Cuff TearWorkers' Compensation GuidelinesSpecial Consideration 6Medical EvidenceRemittalAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ7523877
Regular
Apr 10, 2015

Raymond Ybarra vs. Star Transport, ICW Group

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration of orders dismissing lien claimants' liens. Although the petition was timely filed, the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ) reinstated the two liens within the permissible 15-day timeframe. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the Petition for Reconsideration as moot due to the WCJ's action.

Petition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsOrder DismissingWCJOrder ReinstatingWCAB Rule 10859Lab. Code5900(a)5903Timely Filed
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Calore v. Powell-Savory Corp.

Raymond Galore, acting individually and as president of an AFL-CIO local union, appealed a libel action where the Supreme Court, Westchester County, had dismissed his entire complaint. The appellate court reviewed the dismissal, specifically focusing on the first cause of action which alleged anti-Negro discrimination by Union Local 664. The court reversed the lower court's order and judgment regarding the first cause of action, denying the defendants’ motion to dismiss this part of the complaint. It was determined that falsely charging a labor union with anti-Negro discrimination is libelous per se, especially considering the prevailing public sentiment at the time. The action was severed as to the first cause of action, and defendants were granted additional time to serve answers.

libeldefamationdiscriminationlabor unionAFL-CIOappellate reviewmotion to dismisslibel per serepresentative capacityunion president
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1997

Bush v. Raymond Corp., Inc.

Carrie Bush and her husband Alan Bush filed an action alleging sexual harassment, discriminatory and retaliatory discharge, and loss of consortium against Raymond Corporation, Inc., Chuck Sawyer, and Greg Rusnak. Carrie Bush claimed hostile work environment sexual harassment by supervisors Sawyer and Rusnak through offensive comments and sexual remarks. She alleged making complaints to Sawyer and Human Resources, which were not effectively addressed. The court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, finding triable issues of fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of harassment and the employer's liability. However, the court granted summary judgment to defendants on the discriminatory and retaliatory discharge claims, concluding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for these allegations.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawDiscriminatory DischargeRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilitySupervisor HarassmentIndividual Liability HRL
References
40
Case No. ADJ7188251; ADJ7188272
Regular
Mar 08, 2013

Raymond Mark vs. City of Los Angeles

This case involves a petition by applicant Raymond Mark to resubmit or remove two workers' compensation cases, alleging the City of Los Angeles refused to fund an arbitrator. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for three reasons: no arbitrator decision existed for review, the underlying claims were previously dismissed giving the Board no jurisdiction, and the Board lacks jurisdiction over disputes concerning the administration of the Alternative Dispute Resolution Agreement itself. The Board concluded that the applicant's recourse for funding disputes lies in collective bargaining, arbitration, or petitioning the Administrative Director to decertify the agreement.

Petition for ResubmissionADR CasesL.C. § 3201.7ADR ARB IVCity of Los AngelesFunding ArbitratorOpinion and Order Granting ReconsiderationDecision After ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalJurisdiction
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 114 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