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. 2022 NY Slip Op 02849 [204 AD3d 1348]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Strikeforce Staffing LLC liable for unemployment insurance contributions, classifying Nelson Ruiz Cruz and other workers as employees. Strikeforce, a staffing agency, connected Cruz with a bakery client, who managed his employment and daily tasks. Strikeforce's involvement largely consisted of initial screening and payroll processing based on client approvals. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's determination. The court ruled that there was not substantial evidence to support an employer-employee relationship, as Strikeforce did not exercise sufficient control over the means or results of the workers' services. The decision was remitted back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencyIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' ClassificationRemuneration Liability
References
9
Case No. ADJ9456228 (MF), ADJ9341963
Regular
Oct 09, 2018

MARIA COLCHADO vs. TOLL GLOBAL FORWARDING HOLDING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, SELECT STAFFING, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE, TRI-STATE STAFFING, CIGA administered by SEDGWICK for LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING in liquidation

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine Toll Global Forwarding's employer status. While the ALJ found Toll Global was not a special employer, the Board reversed this, finding Toll Global was indeed the special employer. This determination was based on Toll Global's direct supervision and instruction of the applicant. The staffing agencies, Select Staffing and Tri-State Staffing, were designated as the general employers.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCIGASpecial EmployerGeneral EmployerToll Global ForwardingSelect StaffingTri-State StaffingACE American InsuranceJoint Findings and OrderPetition for Reconsideration
References
11
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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00044 [212 AD3d 419]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2023

Sakthivel v. Industrious Staffing Co., LLC

Plaintiff Suba Sakthivel appealed an order dismissing her complaint against Industrious Staffing Company, LLC. Sakthivel, proceeding pro se, alleged unlawful termination based on complaints about safety violations following a coworker assault, claiming protection under Labor Law §§ 215 and 740. The Supreme Court had granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division affirmed, ruling that Sakthivel, as a staff accountant, was not covered by Labor Law § 200, which applies to construction workers. Her Labor Law § 740 claim failed because a coworker assault does not meet the criteria for a "substantial and specific danger to public health or safety." Additionally, her claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress was dismissed for not alleging conduct "utterly intolerable in a civilized community."

Employment LawRetaliation ClaimWrongful TerminationSafe WorkplaceIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressAppellate ReviewCPLR 3211 DismissalLabor Law ViolationsCoworker AssaultStaff Accountant
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copper v. Cavalry Staffing, LLC

Derek Copper and Leslie Minto filed a collective action against Cavalry Staffing, Tracy Hester, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Enterprise's motion to dismiss based on not being an employer was denied, with the court finding sufficient pleading for joint employer status. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied for overtime and wage statement claims, but granted for minimum-wage claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action, finding adequate factual showing from named plaintiffs and additional affidavits. The parties were directed to agree on notice procedures for opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeMinimum WageWage StatementsJoint EmployerCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to DismissWage Theft Prevention Act
References
24
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. 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 361 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