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. 69 Civ. 200 (DNE)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This memorandum addresses International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) request for Judge David N. Edelstein to recuse himself from further proceedings in U. S. v. IBM. IBM filed an affidavit alleging the judge had personal bias and prejudice, and that the court lacked jurisdiction following a stipulation of dismissal on January 8, 1982. The court asserts its jurisdiction to determine its own authority, citing precedent. The memorandum concludes that IBM's recusal request is without merit, citing reasons such as it being a second such affidavit in the case, its untimeliness, and the failure to demonstrate an extrajudicial bias. Consequently, the request for recusal is denied.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasJurisdiction DisputeTunney Act ApplicabilityAntitrust ProceduresStipulation of DismissalAmicus Curiae InterventionTimeliness of MotionCode of Judicial ConductFederal Procedure
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Miller

District Judge Frankel's memorandum addresses the sentencing of four former postal employees for stealing mail, lamenting the lack of public awareness for such routine criminal cases. The judge aims to invite notice to mail embezzlement to foster general deterrence, particularly among other postal workers. Despite acknowledging the defendants' non-evil nature and meager incomes, the memorandum emphasizes that their deliberate and repetitive crimes resulted in job loss, public disgrace, and sentences of confinement and supervised probation. This stricter approach signals a departure from past leniency, intending to underscore the serious consequences of violating public trust and to serve as a strong warning against future mail theft.

Mail theftEmbezzlementSentencingGeneral deterrenceJudicial discretionPostal employeesCriminal lawFederal courtJudicial memorandumProbation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McSweeney v. Bayport Bluepoint Central School District

This Memorandum and Order addresses defendants' renewed motion for summary judgment in a case brought by an infant plaintiff, MS, and her parents against the Bayport-Bluepoint Central School District and Principal Kerry Vann. Plaintiffs alleged claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Equal Protection, Due Process, and Monell claims) and Title IX, stemming from alleged bullying by another student, CC. Additionally, a New York State negligence claim was included. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all federal claims, determining that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate constitutional violations or actionable sexual harassment under Title IX, and that the school's responses were not deliberately indifferent or conscience-shocking. The state negligence claim was dismissed without prejudice due to the dismissal of all original jurisdiction claims.

Student bullyingSchool liabilityCivil rights violationFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 56Summary judgmentEqual Protection ClauseDue Process ClauseMonell claimTitle IXDeliberate indifference
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.K.B. v. Eggleston

This Memorandum Order addresses a motion filed by defendants Verna Eggleston, Doar, and Novello, seeking to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel, paralegal assistants, interns, and former attorney Reena Ganju from testifying in the action. The defendants argued that these individuals were essential fact witnesses for the plaintiffs’ 'Monell' claim, invoking the advocate-witness rule. The Court, presided over by District Judge RAKOFF, denied the motion in its entirety. The decision clarified that the advocate-witness rule, as embodied in New York Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-102, does not apply to non-lawyers or to lawyers not currently appearing for any party in the case. The Court also noted that Ms. Ganju's testimony and other documentary evidence would render counsel's testimony cumulative and not essential for the plaintiffs' case, though it admonished plaintiffs' counsel for an 'inappropriate' confusion of roles.

Advocate-Witness RuleDisqualification MotionLegal EthicsProfessional ResponsibilityMonell ClaimFederal CourtCounsel TestimonyParalegal TestimonyIntern TestimonyPrior Representation
References
3
Case No. 09 Civ. 7283
Regular Panel Decision

D'OLIMPIO v. Crisafi

This Memorandum Order addresses motions to dismiss in consolidated actions: D’Olimpio v. Crisafi et al. (09 Civ. 7283) and Crisafi v. Kaplan (09 Civ. 9952). Plaintiff D’Olimpio alleged malicious prosecution and constitutional violations against law enforcement officers, while plaintiff Kaplan claimed retaliation for reporting misconduct. The court denied motions to dismiss D’Olimpio’s malicious prosecution and supervisory liability claims, finding sufficient allegations for malice and rejecting a narrow reading of supervisory liability under Iqbal. However, Kaplan's First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed with prejudice, as his speech was deemed part of his official duties. Additionally, Crisafi’s defamation counterclaim against Kaplan was dismissed with prejudice, as Kaplan was not found legally responsible for the republication of statements in an Inspector General report.

Malicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestUnlawful DetentionConstitutional ViolationsSupervisory LiabilityQualified ImmunityProbable CauseDefamationFirst Amendment RightsRetaliation Claim
References
29
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. S7 91 Cr. 451
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 1993

United States v. Marquez

This Memorandum Opinion and Order details the findings for the sentencing of defendant Flora Marquez following a Fatico hearing. Marquez pleaded guilty to conspiracy to distribute and possess heroin. The hearing addressed disputes regarding the quantity of narcotics involved, her role in the offense, and claims of diminished capacity. The Court determined a Base Offense Level of 32, denied adjustments for her role or diminished capacity, and allowed only a two-point reduction for acceptance of responsibility. Consequently, Marquez's Total Offense Level was set at 30, with a Criminal History Category of I, leading to a sentencing guideline range of 97-121 months.

Criminal LawSentencing GuidelinesDrug ConspiracyHeroin DistributionCocaine DistributionFatico HearingRelevant ConductBase Offense LevelDiminished CapacityAcceptance of Responsibility
References
21
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

Delcotto v. Kenworth Trucking Co.

This personal injury case involves an employee's injury allegedly caused by the absence of safety devices on a dump truck. Defendant Paccar, Inc., the manufacturer of the underlying vehicle body, moved for summary judgment, arguing it was not responsible for installing safety devices on a vehicle body later modified by others into a dump truck. The court granted Paccar's motion, concluding that the responsibility for installing use-specific safety devices rests with the customer or installer making the modifications. The decision was supported by industry affidavits and New York law, which shifts responsibility for post-delivery modifications to the downstream entity that produces the final use-ready product.

Personal InjuryProduct LiabilitySummary JudgmentManufacturing DefectSafety DevicesDump TruckPost-Delivery ModificationIndustry StandardsNew York LawUpstream Manufacturer
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,257 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