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

Goldberg v. Touche Ross & Co.

In this consolidated class action, Touche Ross & Co., as assignee of claims from the Goldberg action, moved for summary judgment against Theodor H. Kaufman, Benjamin Lieberman, and Jack Shapiro. The litigation originated from allegedly fraudulent financial statements issued by Giant Stores Corp. for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, which Touche Ross had certified as Giant's auditor. Shapiro, an officer and director of Giant, was previously convicted of fraud related to these statements. The court addressed Shapiro's arguments against Touche Ross's motion, including claims of impermissible indemnity and factual disputes regarding causation and damages. The court emphasized a strong public policy against indemnity in securities fraud cases and denied Touche Ross's motion, suggesting that contribution from nonsettling defendants might be an alternative remedy.

Securities FraudClass ActionSummary Judgment MotionIndemnityContributionCorporate OfficersFinancial Statements FraudAuditor LiabilityBankruptcy ActSEC Investigation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Resnick v. Touche Ross & Co.

This action addresses claims made by purchasers of Weis Securities, Inc. stock against Touche Ross, Weis' auditor, following the firm's collapse in 1973. Plaintiffs allege Touche Ross certified materially false and misleading financial statements in 1972, leading to violations of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Securities Act of 1933, common law negligence, and aiding and abetting. The court examined the scienter standard for 10b-5 claims, concluding that recklessness suffices, and thus allowed the 10b-5 and aiding and abetting claims to proceed. However, claims under Sections 17(a) and 18(a) of the 1934 Act were dismissed, the former due to plaintiffs not being customers and the latter due to time limitations. The court also maintained pendent jurisdiction over the gross negligence claim, citing New York law that allows actions against accountants for recklessness even without strict privity.

Securities FraudAuditor LiabilityRecklessness StandardRule 10b-5Aiding and Abetting LiabilityCommon Law NegligencePendent JurisdictionSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933Financial Misstatements
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06483
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Brewer v. Ross

Plaintiff William Brewer sought damages for personal injuries after a scaffold collapsed at the home of defendants Serina L. Ross and Milton E. Nielson, Jr. The Supreme Court dismissed Labor Law claims against the homeowners, citing the homeowner exemption, and a jury found Nielson negligent but not the proximate cause for common-law negligence. The Appellate Division reversed, finding a rational basis for a jury to deny the homeowner exemption under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) due to conflicting evidence on Nielson's control over the work. It further determined the jury's verdict on common-law negligence was inconsistent, as Nielson's alleged negligence in striking the scaffold would logically constitute proximate cause. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for a new trial on all relevant causes of action against the named defendants.

Personal InjuryScaffold CollapseHomeowner ExemptionCommon-Law NegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewNew TrialCPLR 4401 MotionCPLR 4404(a) Motion
References
15
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24159
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2004

Ross v. Louise Wise Servs.

Plaintiffs Arthur and Dr. Barbara Ross sued Louise Wise Services, Inc., an adoption agency, alleging wrongful adoption and fraud, negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. They claimed the agency concealed their adopted son's family history of paranoid schizophrenia. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court denied summary judgment on the wrongful adoption and fraud claim, finding triable issues of fact regarding fraudulent concealment. However, the court dismissed the negligence and intentional tort claims as time-barred. The court also limited potential compensatory damages to extraordinary out-of-pocket expenses incurred until the son reached age 21, but allowed the claim for punitive damages to proceed.

Wrongful adoptionFraudulent concealmentParanoid schizophreniaAdoption agency liabilityStatute of limitations defenseEquitable estoppelCompensatory damages limitationPunitive damagesMental health disclosureBreach of fiduciary duty
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TTL Distribution, Inc. v. Local 99, Office & Distribution Employees Union

This case concerns a dispute between TTL Distribution, Inc. (formerly Ups 'N Downs, Inc.), an employer, and the Office and Distribution Employees’ Union Local 99, I.L.G.W.U. The employer sought to vacate an arbitration award, while the Union moved to confirm it. The underlying arbitration stemmed from Ups 'N Downs' decision to close its warehouse and terminate employees after selling its retail stores, without ensuring the buyer assumed contractual obligations under their collective bargaining agreement. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the Union, ordering back pay, vacation pay, and fund contributions. The District Court upheld the arbitrator's decision, emphasizing the broad scope of arbitration in labor relations and confirming the award.

Arbitration AwardLabor DisputeUnion ContractCollective BargainingEmployer SaleEmployee TerminationContractual ObligationsJudicial DeferenceFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gohr Distributing Co. v. Teamsters Local 264

Gohr Distributing Co. discharged employee William Greene, a member of Teamsters Local #264, in April 1986. Greene filed a grievance which was denied. He then sued Gohr and Teamsters, alleging wrongful discharge and breach of fair representation, respectively. Teamsters later demanded arbitration of Greene's discharge, which Gohr initially agreed to but then withdrew. Gohr subsequently moved for a preliminary injunction to prevent arbitration, arguing it was untimely under the six-month statute of limitations from the National Labor Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(b). Teamsters opposed, arguing their demand was not untimely and filed a cross-motion to compel arbitration. The court consolidated the preliminary injunction motion with a trial on the merits and found that arbitration was barred by the six-month statute of limitations, granting Gohr's motion for a permanent injunction and denying Teamsters' cross-motion.

Preliminary InjunctionArbitrationLabor DisputeStatute of LimitationsNational Labor Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationFederal PolicySix-Month Rule
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ross-Caleb v. City of Rochester

Five current or former employees of the City of Rochester and their Chief of Security filed an employment discrimination lawsuit claiming gender discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York Human Rights Law. The defendants moved for summary judgment on all causes of action. The court dismissed Jean Claude Desardouin's claims as untimely and found that the other plaintiffs (Alfonda Crawford, Theresa Smith, Jewanta Desardouin, and Terra Ross-Caleb) failed to establish sufficient evidence for their hostile work environment or retaliation claims. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment in its entirety, dismissing all plaintiffs' claims with prejudice.

Employment discriminationGender discriminationSexual harassmentRetaliation claimsHostile work environmentSummary judgmentTitle VII Civil Rights ActSection 1983 claimsNew York Human Rights LawEEOC administrative remedies
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 2015

Matter of Mangan v. Try-It Distributing Co., Inc.

In 2000, Tracy Mangan, an employee of Try-It Distributing Co., Inc., suffered a work-related back injury. He was later classified with a permanent partial disability, and liability for his claim was transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. His average weekly wage was established at $813.49. Mangan passed away in July 2012 due to complications from causally-related back surgery. Subsequently, his widow, the claimant, filed a claim for death benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially determined that benefits should be calculated based on the decedent's average weekly wage at the time of his death. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board modified this decision, ruling that the calculation should be based on the average weekly wage at the time of the 2000 accident. The claimant appealed this modification, but the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, citing Workers’ Compensation Law §§ 14 and 16(5)(4) which support calculating death benefits based on the average weekly wage at the date of accident or disablement.

Death BenefitsAverage Weekly WagePermanent Partial DisabilitySpecial Fund for Reopened CasesWork-Related InjuryDate of AccidentDate of DeathAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCalculation of Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.

Plaintiff Demme Ulloa initiated legal action against Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, and Shawn Carter, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, joint authorship, and an accounting of sales. Ulloa claimed to have spontaneously created a vocal counter-melody for Shawn Carter's song "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" which was later used without proper credit or compensation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims of joint authorship and Lanham Act violations, dismissing them. However, it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding copyright infringement, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning originality, work-for-hire status, and implied license. Additionally, the defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to bifurcate the trial were denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnjust EnrichmentJoint AuthorshipSummary JudgmentWork for HireImplied LicenseMusical CompositionSound RecordingOriginality
References
31
Case No. ADJ2226224 (SAC 0311341) ADJ1548628 (SAC 0312986) ADJ3458941 (OAK 0280429)
Regular
May 15, 2009

William Ross vs. CITY OF SACRAMENTO

This case concerns William Ross's claim for new and further disability benefits from the City of Sacramento for cumulative trauma injuries. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to amend a previous award. The WCAB found Ross was temporarily totally disabled from March 15, 2005, to June 23, 2005, for treatment of his right shoulder impingement. This period was awarded despite the defendant's arguments that Ross was retired, had no intention to seek work, and delayed treatment. The WCAB determined that Ross's withdrawal from the labor market was due to his industrial injury, entitling him to benefits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardJoint Findings and Awardnew and further disabilitytemporary disabilitycumulative trauma injuriessanitation workervocational rehabilitationretirementvoluntary withdrawal from labor marketindustrial injury
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 349 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