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. 04 Civ. 8987(LBS)
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2005

Doo Nam Yang v. ACBL CORP.

Plaintiff Doo Nam Yang sued ACBL Corp., Gold Lee Jewelry Co., and Han Sung Lee for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law, specifically regarding unpaid overtime and spread of hours wages. Yang also brought a common law claim for conversion, alleging deductions from his wages were not remitted for taxes or returned to him. The U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, with Judge Sand presiding, conducted a bench trial and found the defendants liable. The court awarded Yang a total of $70,960.57 in damages, including liquidated damages and prejudgment interest, for which all defendants were held jointly and severally liable.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ViolationsOvertime PaySpread of Hours PayConversion TortWillful ViolationLiquidated DamagesPrejudgment InterestEmployer Liability
References
26
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03670 [239 AD3d 1157]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Matter of Lo (Go N.Y. Tours Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

Yero Lo, a street ticket seller for Go New York Tours Inc. (TopView Sightseeing), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after TopView's closure due to the COVID-19 pandemic. The Department of Labor initially determined TopView was the employer and liable for contributions. An Administrative Law Judge overruled this, finding Lo and others were independent contractors. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the ALJ, concluding that ticket sellers were employees, making TopView liable. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial evidence of TopView's control over the ticket sellers, including training, providing equipment, setting parameters for sales, and restricting other employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorStreet Ticket SellerSightseeing Tour BusControl TestAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal Board
References
5
Case No. GOL 96757
Regular
Jun 10, 2008

SA YANG LO vs. CUSTOM SENSORS & TECHNOLOGIES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a prior award, upholding the application of the 2005 Permanent Disability Rating Schedule. The Board found that exceptions allowing for the 1997 Schedule did not apply, as the applicant's temporary disability indemnity extended beyond January 1, 2005, and no qualifying pre-2005 reports indicated permanent disability. Furthermore, the Board found the applicant's vocational expert's opinion regarding diminished future earning capacity unpersuasive, thus affirming the initial 9% permanent disability rating.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSA Yang LoCustom Sensors & TechnologiesInc.State Compensation Insurance FundGOL 96757Opinion and Order Denying ReconsiderationFindings and AwardWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJ
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03169 [161 AD3d 813]
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 2018

Yao Zong Wu v. Zhen Jia Yang

This case concerns an appeal from orders regarding personal injuries sustained by Yao Zong Wu, who fell from a ladder while working on property owned by Zhen Jia Yang et al. The plaintiff alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss both causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's summary judgment motion. However, it modified the second order by reinstating the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, concluding that the defendants failed to establish as a matter of law that the ladder provided proper protection or that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, predicated on Industrial Code § 23-1.21 (b) (4) (ii), was affirmed, as the alleged violation was found not to be a proximate cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder FallSummary JudgmentProximate CauseAppellate ReviewConstruction Site SafetyIndustrial CodeSafety DevicesWorkplace Accident
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Royal Park Investments SA/NV sued U.S. Bank National Association regarding residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the action or disqualify Royal Park as class representative due to Royal Park's failure to produce documents from its assignors. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, found Royal Park's non-compliance willful but denied U.S. Bank's motion for sanctions and disqualification. The court reasoned that U.S. Bank had not yet demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant such severe sanctions, indicating that dismissal would be 'unnecessarily draconian'. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing U.S. Bank to renew its application if prejudice could be shown.

Discovery SanctionsWillfulnessPrejudiceClass ActionRMBS LitigationTrust Indenture ActBreach of ContractBreach of TrustAssignor DocumentsStanding
References
31
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04761
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 2022

Zong Wang Yang v. City of New York

The case involves Zong Wang Yang, an injured worker, and his wife suing various defendants for personal injuries sustained from a fall at a construction site due to inadequate planking over a shaft. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240(1) liability against the City defendants (City of New York, Brooklyn Navy Yard Development Corporation, and Plaza Construction, LLC). On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this denial, granting the plaintiffs' motion, asserting that the shaft was not properly protected and the worker's alleged comparative negligence was not the sole proximate cause. The court also affirmed the denial of ZHN Contracting Corporation's motion to dismiss negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and upheld the granting of contractual indemnification to Plaza Construction, LLC from A-Tech Electric Enterprises, Inc.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityElevation-Related HazardProximate CauseContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law NegligenceSubcontractor LiabilityConstruction AccidentPersonal Injury
References
27
Case No. ADJ6622491
Regular
Jun 03, 2014

PAO YANG vs. COUNTY OF FRESNO; Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By YORK INSURANCE SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case, ADJ6622491, involves applicant Pao Yang and defendant County of Fresno. The Board dismissed Yang's Petition for Reconsideration. This dismissal was based on the Petition being untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the September 8, 2011, Order, violating the 20-day filing period plus 5-day mailing extension. The Board adopted the WCJ's Report and Recommendation in reaching this decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationUntimelyWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 5903Code of Civil Procedure section 1013WCJ ReportAdministrative Law JudgeDismissalPermissibly Self-InsuredYork Insurance Services Group
References
0
Case No. 02 Civ. 910
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 10, 2006

In Re Alstom SA Securities Litigation

The lead plaintiffs, a group of retirement systems and a union, filed a class action lawsuit alleging securities fraud against Alstom S.A., its subsidiaries Alstom Transportation Inc. (ATI), Alstom USA, and executives Stephan Rambaud-Measson and Joseph Janovec. The claims involve violations of Sections 10(b) and 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, stemming from ATI's alleged understatement of costs on railcar contracts, particularly for New Jersey Transit. These accounting improprieties purportedly led to an overstatement of Alstom's income in public financial reports. The District Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged scienter against Alstom, active participation and scienter against Rambaud-Measson and Janovec, and a plausible veil-piercing theory for Alstom USA's liability. The decision allows the case to proceed, underscoring that the plaintiffs' detailed new allegations, including executive knowledge of cost overruns, met the heightened pleading standards for fraud and control liability.

Securities fraudClass actionAlstomFinancial misstatementsExchange ActSection 10(b) violationSection 20(a) violationMotion to dismissScienterCorporate veil-piercing
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yang Zhao v. Keuka College

Plaintiff Yang Zhao sued Keuka College and several administrators, alleging denial of tenure due to discrimination based on her ethnicity, race, and national origin, in violation of Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. The Court granted Plaintiff's request to amend her complaint to include a claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1981. However, the Court partially granted the Defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that Plaintiff's Title VII claims were time-barred and that she failed to plausibly allege a hostile work environment claim. The federal § 1981 claim allowed the Court to retain supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

DiscriminationTenure DenialTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 1981Hostile Work EnvironmentMotion to AmendMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsEquitable Tolling
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Feng Ling Liu

The case concerns a motion for a new trial filed by Rui Yang and her co-defendants, Feng Ling Liu and Vanessa Bandrich, who were convicted of conspiracy to commit immigration fraud. The defendants argued for a new trial under Fed.R.Crim.P. 33, alleging juror misconduct by Juror 2, who purportedly lied about social media activity and exhibited bias during the trial. The Court found that Juror 2's tweets, while discussing her experience, did not delve into the substance of the case and showed no dishonesty or bias, nor did they cause prejudice to the defendants. Concluding that no manifest injustice occurred, the District Court denied the defendants' motion for a new trial.

Juror misconductSocial mediaNew trial motionFed.R.Crim.P. 33Immigration fraudConspiracyJuror biasSixth AmendmentImpartial juryVoir dire
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 32 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