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. 2023 NY Slip Op 23283
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2023

Jackson v. Citywide Mobile Response Corp.

Tray Jackson, an emergency medical technician (EMT), initiated a class action lawsuit against Citywide Mobile Response Corp., alleging multiple violations of the New York State Labor Law and NYCRR. Jackson claimed that the defendant failed to provide full wages, including overtime and spread of hours pay, and illegally deducted costs for mandatory uniforms and supplies from employee pay, resulting in wages below the minimum wage. The plaintiff sought class certification for a proposed class of approximately 200 current and former EMTs, paramedics, and drivers. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, presided over by Justice Fidel E. Gomez, granted the motion for class certification, finding that all statutory requirements under CPLR 901 and 902 were satisfied. The court certified a class comprising all individuals working for the defendant as drivers, EMTs, or paramedics in New York between December 30, 2015, and August 15, 2022.

Class Action CertificationLabor Law ViolationsUnpaid WagesOvertime PayUniform ReimbursementMinimum WageSpread of Hours PayWage NoticesIllegal Wage DeductionsEMT
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klem v. Special Response Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the distribution of settlement proceeds and a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff sustained an ankle injury during employment and subsequently settled a personal injury action against Special Response Corporation. Zurich Insurance Company, the workers' compensation insurer for the plaintiff's employer, had paid over $114,000 in benefits and claimed a lien against the $70,000 settlement proceeds. The Supreme Court initially ruled that Zurich was not entitled to assert a lien. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming Zurich's right to a lien, but remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings to properly calculate the lien amount, taking into account statutory reductions for benefits paid in lieu of first-party benefits and an equitable apportionment of litigation costs, including attorneys' fees.

Workers' CompensationLien RightsSettlement ProceedsPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewInsurance LawEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFirst-Party BenefitsNo-Fault Law
References
6
Case No. ADJ3162900 (LAO 0866179)
Regular
Aug 23, 2012

ROBERTO GOMEZ vs. GREIF BROTHERS CORPORATION, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

This case concerns a lien claimant's request for reconsideration of a disallowed lien due to alleged due process violations regarding witness testimony. The Appeals Board initially ordered responses from attorney Hannan and hearing representative Surujnarain regarding these allegations. While Hannan received an extension, Surujnarain's late joinder to the extension request, citing a need for legal counsel due to his non-attorney status, was ultimately granted. Surujnarain now has until September 7, 2012, to file his verified response, with no further extensions to be granted absent a compelling showing of good cause.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings & OrderLien ClaimantDue ProcessWitness TestimonySanctionsPetition for Extension of TimeVerified ResponsePenalty of Perjury
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00572 [191 AD3d 692]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 03, 2021

Penny v. County of Suffolk

In a personal injury action, plaintiff Harry Penny, a track coach, tripped and fell over starting blocks during a track meet. Defendants New York State Public High School Athletic Association, Inc., and Section XI moved for summary judgment, arguing they neither controlled the premises nor created the dangerous condition, and that plaintiff assumed the risk. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division affirmed, finding that evidence raised triable issues of fact regarding the defendants' responsibility for the equipment and the creation of the hazardous condition. Furthermore, the Appellate Division concluded that the defendants failed to establish a prima facie case that the plaintiff assumed the risk or that the starting blocks constituted an open and obvious, non-inherently dangerous condition.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityDangerous ConditionTrip and FallSports EventAssumption of RiskContributionIndemnificationAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1993

Krug v. Offerman, Fallon, Mahoney & Cassano

The plaintiff, an attorney, sued the law firm Offerman, Fallon, Mahoney & Cassano and its partner Leo J. Fallon for breach of contract regarding a fee-splitting agreement. The plaintiff was retained by the firm to represent their client, Charles Hahn, in workers' compensation hearings, specifically to oppose the claim and preserve Hahn's personal injury action. The plaintiff's efforts were successful, leading to a $1.8 million settlement in the personal injury case and a $600,000 contingent fee for the firm. The firm subsequently refused to pay the plaintiff a percentage of the fee. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and the invalidity of the fee-splitting agreement under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court denied the motions, finding the action was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and the fee agreement was enforceable. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was for services rendered in the personal injury action and that a fee-splitting agreement does not require a writing unless joint responsibility is assumed, which was not the case here.

breach of contractfee-splitting agreementworkers' compensationpersonal injury litigationattorney compensationjurisdictionprofessional ethicsappellate reviewcontingent feeslegal malpractice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2007

Botway v. National Response Corp.

The defendant, Deborah L. Wick, appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment in a personal injury action. The plaintiff alleged Wick, her supervisor at National Response Corporation (NRC), caused injuries through an intentional tort, despite receiving worker's compensation benefits. Wick argued the plaintiff's claim was barred by the Workers’ Compensation Law's exclusive remedy, and the intentional tort exception did not apply as she lacked intent to injure. The Supreme Court denied Wick's motion, finding a factual dispute regarding the intentional tort. The appellate court affirmed this denial, concluding that Wick failed to establish a prima facie case for summary judgment by not eliminating the existence of a factual issue concerning whether an intentional tort was committed.

Personal InjuryIntentional TortSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedySupervisor LiabilityAppellate ReviewQuestion of FactPrima Facie EntitlementEmployment Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Trump

Plaintiffs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode sued Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President, alleging violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution due to his continued business interests. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and injunctions to prevent further violations and require the release of financial records. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the 'Hospitality Plaintiffs' (ROC United, Phaneuf, and Goode) lacked Article III standing due to a failure to demonstrate competitive injury traceable to Defendant's actions or redressable by the court, and that their claims fell outside the Emoluments Clauses' zone of interests. The court also ruled that CREW lacked standing as its alleged injury of diverted resources was deemed self-inflicted and an 'abstract concern.' Furthermore, the court considered the Foreign Emoluments Clause claims non-justiciable as a political question and not ripe for judicial review, as Congress had not yet asserted its authority.

Emoluments ClauseStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionPolitical Question DoctrineRipeness DoctrineConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersEconomic CompetitionOrganizational StandingPresidential Powers
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2004

United States v. Jaffe

Bernard Jaffe, Jr. pleaded guilty to making false statements to an FDIC-insured bank, defrauding the Bank of New York of $20 million. He was sentenced to 57 months imprisonment, three years of supervised release, and ordered to pay $18.1 million in restitution. The District Court denied his motion for a downward departure based on his 43-year-old daughter's alleged dependency, deeming her not uniquely reliant. Despite initial reservations regarding his cooperation, Jaffe received a three-level sentencing reduction for acceptance of responsibility. The court established a restitution payment schedule, including a 9% interest rate, and clarified that Florida's homestead and federal ERISA pension exemptions would not shield assets from federal restitution obligations, especially once pension funds are distributed.

Fraudulent StatementsBank FraudSentencing GuidelinesRestitution OrderDownward Departure DenialAcceptance of ResponsibilityERISA BenefitsFlorida Homestead ExemptionFinancial DisclosureVictim Compensation
References
43
Case No. ADJ10125079
Regular
Feb 22, 2017

BIRGIT GALINDO vs. AMERICAN MEDICAL RESPONSE, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a petition for removal filed by the defendants, American Medical Response and its insurer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, citing that removal is an extraordinary remedy only granted in cases of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The WCAB found that the defendants failed to demonstrate such harm and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy if an adverse decision is eventually issued. Therefore, the defendants' contentions can be raised with the trial judge.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationWCJ AnalysisAdministrative Law JudgeExtraordinary RemedyFinal DecisionTrial Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

This case involves consolidated appeals challenging the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation's (RIOC) approval of the Related/Hudson site plan for Southtown development. Petitioners, Alternative Southtown Design Committee and Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development, argued RIOC failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the plan violated the General Development Plan (GDP). The Supreme Court's judgment, which had dismissed RIRSD's petition as untimely, was modified on appeal, finding the petition timely but denying it on the merits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Alternative's petition and the denial of RIRA's intervention, concluding that RIOC took the requisite "hard look" at environmental impacts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court found petitioners lacked standing to challenge the GDP's breach as they were merely incidental beneficiaries.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactGeneral Development PlanRoosevelt IslandLand UseUrban DevelopmentSite PlanJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Law
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 1,039 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