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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04702 [219 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

47 E. 34th St. (NY) L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.

In 47 E. 34th St. (NY) L.P. v BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc., the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, 47 East 34th Street (NY) L.P. The plaintiff had sought to hold Versa Capital Management, LLC, and Domus BWW Funding, LLC liable as successors or alter egos of BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc. (BWW) on a lease guaranty. The Appellate Division found that the lower court erred by relying on a mistaken belief of a 'limited factual issue' and misinterpreting previous admissions. It concluded that documentary evidence disproved successor and alter ego liability, as BWW's assets were transferred to nonparties, not to Versa or Domus Funding. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to Versa Capital Management, LLC, and Domus BWW Funding, LLC, dismissing all claims against them.

Successor LiabilityAlter EgoFraudulent ConveyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCorporate DominationLoan ForeclosureForbearance AgreementVeil PiercingPersonal Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 10 Civ. 7394; 10 Civ. 7387
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. OPPENHEIMER FUNDS DISTRIBUTOR, INC.

Plaintiff Bradley C. Smith brought two derivative actions under the Investment Company Act (ICA) against Oppenheimer Gold & Special Minerals Fund and Oppenheimer Quest for Value Funds, along with their trustees and OppenheimerFunds Distributor, Inc. (OFDI). Smith alleged violations of ICA Section 47(b) based on predicate violations of ICA Section 36(a) and SEC Rule 38a-l, arguing that asset-based compensation paid to broker-dealers violated the Investment Advisers Act (IAA). The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss, holding that ICA Section 47(b) does not create a private right of action for substantive ICA provisions that lack one. Neither ICA Section 36(a) nor SEC Rule 38a-l were found to imply a private right of action. As a result, the plaintiff failed to establish a viable predicate violation for his Section 47(b) claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Investment Company ActInvestment Advisers ActMutual FundsBroker-DealersFiduciary DutyPrivate Right of ActionMotion to DismissSecurities LawSupplemental JurisdictionRule 12b-1
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

TXU Generation Co. v. Public Utility Commission

The Texas Court of Appeals, Austin, reviewed a direct appeal challenging the Public Utility Commission's Wholesale Market Oversight (WMO) Rule. Appellants, a group of market participants, argued the rule exceeded the Commission's statutory authority, was unconstitutionally vague, constituted an unconstitutional taking, and violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) regarding notice and concise statement of authority. The court, led by Justice Bea Ann Smith, affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule. It held that the Commission possessed broad authority under PURA to regulate the wholesale electricity market to protect public interest, consumers, and ensure reasonably priced ancillary services, even if some prohibited conduct was unintentional. The court also found the rule provided sufficient notice and did not invite arbitrary enforcement, nor did it constitute an unconstitutional taking or violate APA procedures. Ultimately, the court affirmed the validity of the WMO Rule, concluding that it reasonably promotes competition and fulfills legislative goals for the electricity market.

Electricity RegulationWholesale Energy MarketPublic Utility CommissionAdministrative LawStatutory InterpretationConstitutional ChallengesMarket Power AbuseConsumer ProtectionTexas LawDirect Appeal
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2013

De Ping Song v. 47 Old Country, Inc.

Plaintiffs, salon workers (De Ping Song, Song Li, Yan Zhang, Chun Sen Zhu, Yang Xu, Jie Yi), sued the original defendants (Kui Soon Cho, Bae Kim, Hae Sook Kim, Hye Young Choi, and 47 Old Country, Inc.) for wage, hour, and employment discrimination violations, securing a $474,011.43 judgment in 2012 that remained unpaid. Subsequently, plaintiffs initiated a Rule 69 proceeding to impose successor liability on third-parties Inhae Corp. and Myung Ryun Park. The court applied the 'substantial continuity' test, finding Inhae Corp. liable as a successor due to clear notice of the judgment and the original defendants' likely inability to pay. However, Inhae Corp.'s liability was limited to the original jury verdict amount for unpaid wages, excluding liquidated damages and prejudgment interest, and Myung Ryun Park was not held personally liable.

Wage and Hour LawEmployment DiscriminationSuccessor LiabilityFLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act)Rule 69 FRCPCPLR 5225Substantial Continuity TestDe Facto MergerMere ContinuationFraudulent Transfer
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Ass'n v. City of Corpus Christi

This cross-appeal addresses the interpretation of the Fire and Police Employee Relations Act (FPERA) concerning a collective bargaining agreement between the City of Corpus Christi and the Corpus Christi Fire Fighters Association. The dispute centers on whether the City's unilateral implementation of revised grooming standards and modifications to the Vehicle Accident Review Board (VARB) procedural rules constituted mandatory subjects for bargaining as "conditions of employment." Applying a balancing test, the court determined that both the grooming standards and the VARB rules had a greater impact on the City's management prerogatives, particularly public image and safety, than on the fire fighters' working conditions. Consequently, these issues were not deemed "conditions of employment" requiring collective bargaining. The court affirmed the trial court's judgment on grooming standards and reversed its ruling regarding the VARB rules.

Collective BargainingFPERAGrooming StandardsVehicle Accident Review BoardConditions of EmploymentManagement PrerogativesPublic SafetyFire FightersUnilateral ImplementationLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cavazos v. Texas Employers Insurance Ass'n

The case involves an appeal from a trial court's dismissal of the appellant's suit to overturn a final ruling by the Industrial Accident Board. The dismissal was due to the appellant's failure to file the suit within the mandatory 20-day limitation period prescribed by Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat. Ann. art. 8307 § 5. The appellant contended that worker's compensation law should be liberally construed, citing precedents like Ward and Standard Fire Insurance Company. However, the court affirmed that the 20-day filing period is jurisdictional and mandatory. It clarified that Rule 5 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides for an enlargement of time for mailed documents, was inapplicable because the appellant's petition was filed late, not merely mailed late. The court concluded that applying Rule 5 would improperly extend the statute of limitations, and thus affirmed the trial court's judgment.

Statute of LimitationsJurisdictionTimely FilingAppellate ReviewIndustrial Accident Board RulingRule 5 TRCPMandatory Statutory PeriodLiberal Construction DoctrineProcedural DismissalWorker's Benefits Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 10,639 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