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

Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc.

Plaintiffs Marcel Alleyne and Earl Legrande filed a class action lawsuit against Time Moving & Storage, Inc. and The Time Record Storage Company, LLC, alleging failure to pay overtime wages in violation of federal FLSA and New York Labor Law. Defendants invoked the motor carrier exemption as a defense. The parties reached a class settlement agreement for the state law claims, which was provisionally certified. Following objections from some class members regarding the fairness of the settlement, class certification, and attorney's fees, the Court, presided over by Judge Vitaliano, granted final class certification and approved the settlement. The Court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the risks of litigation, denied the objectors' motion to intervene, and approved attorney's fees of $60,000.

Class ActionOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMotor Carrier ExemptionWage and Hour ClaimsClass SettlementSettlement ApprovalAttorney's FeesRule 23 Certification
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Iacovelli v. New York Times Co.

A secretary employed by the New York Times Company suffered severe burns when her dress caught fire during her lunch break on an employer-provided terrace. The cause of the intense fire remained unknown, though a company nurse noted the claimant recalled a cigarette ash falling on her dress. The Workers’ Compensation Board found the injury compensable, determining it arose out of and in the course of employment, as the claimant was engaged in a reasonable activity in a designated area. The employer appealed, arguing the accident was a personal act and the cause was not unknown. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Workers’ Compensation Law § 21 (1) presumption for unwitnessed accidents and the employer's failure to present substantial rebuttal evidence that would preclude other explanations for the fire's intensity.

Burn InjuryWorkplace AccidentLunch BreakSmokingWorkers' Compensation LawPresumptionEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewCourse of EmploymentArising Out of Employment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05907 [164 AD3d 43]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2018

AWI Sec. & Investigators, Inc. v. Whitestone Constr. Corp.

This case concerns a dispute between AWI Security and Investigations, Inc. (AWI), a subcontractor, and Whitestone Construction Corp. (Whitestone), a general contractor, over unpaid security services for public construction projects. Whitestone moved to dismiss AWI's action, citing a contractual six-month limitations period that it claimed began in April 2012. AWI appealed the Supreme Court's decision, arguing that the limitations period was unenforceable because Whitestone had stated that payment was contingent on the resolution of a separate prevailing wage class action. Citing precedent, the Appellate Division found that Whitestone's position nullified the contractual limitations period, as it created a scenario where AWI would be forced to sue for a claim that was not yet ripe. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying Whitestone's motion to dismiss the action as time-barred.

Contractual Limitations PeriodStatute of LimitationsSubcontractor PaymentPublic Construction ProjectCondition PrecedentAccrual of Cause of ActionMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewRipeness of ClaimIndemnity Provision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sullivan v. NYC Department of Investigation

Plaintiff Sharon Sullivan sued her former employers, New York City Department of Investigation (DOI) and New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), alleging employment discrimination and retaliation based on race, religion, and age under Title VII and the ADEA. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found that claims against DOI were time-barred. For NYCHA, the court determined that plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for most alleged adverse actions, and could not prove that the defendant's legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for her termination (insubordination) was a pretext for discrimination. Furthermore, the court ruled that her hostile work environment claims were not sufficiently severe or pervasive, and her retaliation claims lacked proof of protected activity. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted, and the entire action was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADEASummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentRace DiscriminationReligious DiscriminationAge DiscriminationFederal Court
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Church of Scientology International v. Time Warner, Inc.

Plaintiff Church of Scientology International (CSI) sued Time Warner Inc., Time Inc. Magazine Co., and Richard Behar (collectively 'Time') for defamation following a May 6, 1991 Time magazine article titled 'Scientology: the Cult of Greed.' CSI alleged the article contained false and defamatory statements. Defendants moved to dismiss the action under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, arguing the statements were not 'of and concerning' CSI and were barred by the group libel doctrine. The Court analyzed six passages, considering Scientology's hierarchical structure to determine if a reasonable connection existed between the statements and CSI. The motion to dismiss was denied, as the court found that allegations in paragraphs 40, 45, 52, and 58 of the complaint sufficiently pleaded the 'of and concerning' requirement.

DefamationLibelGroup Libel DoctrineMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 12(b)(6)First AmendmentFreedom of SpeechReligious OrganizationsChurch of Scientology
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verderber v. Roechling Steel, Inc.

The case involves a review of an investigation by the division’s human rights specialist into an allegation of sexual discrimination. The investigation included reviewing the complaint, interviewing the complainant, examining affidavits from other employees (complainant's superior and co-worker), and reviewing communications from both respondent's and complainant's attorneys, as well as an interview with a former part-time employee. The court determined that the division did not abuse its discretion during the investigation, and the investigative process provided a reasonable basis for an administrative determination. Ultimately, the court concluded that the division's finding of no probable cause was supported by substantial evidence.

Sexual DiscriminationHuman RightsAdministrative ReviewProbable CauseInvestigationAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 8,472 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