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
Apr 01, 2011

Riley v. HSBC USA, INC.

Plaintiff Dawn Riley alleged employment discrimination based on race against HSBC USA, Inc. and HSBC Bank USA, National Association, under Title VII and New York Human Rights Law. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for Riley's termination—poor job performance. The Magistrate Judge recommended granting summary judgment in part to dismiss HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant and denying it as to HSBC Bank USA, National Association, finding material issues of fact regarding pretextual discrimination. Chief Judge William M. Skretny accepted the Report and Recommendation, denied the objections, and partially granted/denied the motion for summary judgment, terminating HSBC USA, Inc. as a defendant. The case will proceed against HSBC Bank USA, National Association.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationReverse DiscriminationSummary JudgmentPretextDisparate TreatmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawReduction in ForcePerformance Review
References
0
Case No. ADJ15999814, ADJ16759614
Regular
Jun 24, 2025

JOSE GAMBOA vs. SAPUTO CHEESE USA, INC.; SEDGWICK

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board considered and denied the Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendants, Saputo Cheese USA, Inc. and Sedgwick. The petition challenged Dr. Mandell's alternative impairment rating, the exclusion of subrosa video evidence, and apportionment opinions. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, finding that the petition was timely acted upon and that defendant's arguments lacked foundation or substantial medical evidence. The WCJ's decision was ultimately supported by substantial medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemSubrosa videoImpeachmentMedical evidenceFunctional capacity evaluationAlmaraz/Guzman analysisSubstantial medical evidence
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2010

Pavlov v. Debt Resolvers USA, Inc.

Claimant Dmitri Pavlov sued Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. after the defendant failed to return funds deposited for credit card debt resolution, alleging the defendant's services were ineffective and its fees excessive. The court determined that Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. engaged in "budget planning" as defined by New York law but was not licensed or properly incorporated as a not-for-profit entity for such activities. Consequently, the agreement between Pavlov and Debt Resolvers USA, Inc. was declared illegal and unenforceable. The court ruled in favor of Pavlov, ordering a refund of the deposited funds totaling $1,693.60. Additionally, the defendant was found to have engaged in deceptive business practices under General Business Law § 349, leading to an extra $50 award for the claimant, bringing the total judgment to $1,743.60 plus interest.

Small ClaimsDebt ResolutionBudget PlanningUnlicensed ActivityConsumer ProtectionDeceptive Business PracticesContract EnforceabilityNew York LawCredit RepairDebt Settlement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delishi v. Property Owner USA LLC

Plaintiff Haxhi Delishi sued multiple defendants after he slipped and fell at a construction site in New York County on November 14, 2005, while working for Collins Building Services, Inc. He alleged negligence against the named defendants for causing or allowing the dangerous condition (a piece of cardboard covering a metal pipe) or failing to warn him. Several defendants, including Stateside Contracting Co., Inc., Jordan Daniels Electrical Contractors, Inc., Property Owner (USA), LLC, HSBC North America, Inc., and Jones Lang LaSalle Services, Inc., moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims against them. Third-party defendant Collins also moved for dismissal of Jones Lang's third-party complaint. The court, presided over by Justice Jack M. Battaglia, denied all motions for summary judgment, finding that none of the moving parties had established prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, partly due to issues with inadmissible deposition testimony and insufficient evidence regarding creation of the condition or notice of it.

Slip and FallConstruction Site InjuryWorkplace AccidentSummary Judgment MotionNegligence ClaimCommon-law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationContributionAdmissibility of Deposition TranscriptsDangerous Condition
References
66
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07763 [176 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2019

Bruno v. T-Mobile, USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Randal Bruno, a maintenance technician, sustained injuries when he tripped on a "step-over" on a roof leased by T-Mobile, USA, Inc. He initiated a consolidated action against T-Mobile and its predecessor, Omnipoint Communications, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law § 200. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing these causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the defendants established prima facie that the step-over was not a dangerous condition and that they lacked actual or constructive notice of any defect. The court further determined that the plaintiff's expert affidavit, relying on inapplicable code provisions, was insufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Premises liabilitySummary judgmentNegligenceLabor Law § 200Appellate DivisionDangerous conditionNotice requirementPersonal injuryWorkplace accidentAffirmed decision
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07628
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2017

Solorzano v. Skanska USA Building, Inc.

Juan Maria Solorzano, an asbestos and lead abatement worker, initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Skanska USA Building, Inc., the construction project manager, following a fall from scaffolding. Solorzano alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied his summary judgment motion due to inconsistencies in his deposition testimony regarding the accident's cause. A jury subsequently ruled in favor of Skanska, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that Solorzano failed to establish a prima facie case under the Labor Law provisions, citing his contradictory testimony and the presence of guardrails on the scaffold.

Scaffolding accidentLabor Law violationsSummary judgmentJury verdictAppellate reviewPersonal injuryConstruction site safetyNegligenceProximate causeDeposition inconsistency
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05284
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2018

Flanagan v. Kajima USA, Inc.

The plaintiff, Robert Flanagan, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which granted summary judgment to the defendant Kajima Construction Services, Inc., dismissing the complaint against it. The plaintiff sought damages for personal injuries sustained in a workplace accident. Kajima Construction Services, Inc., argued that the plaintiff was its 'special employee,' and therefore his exclusive remedy was workers' compensation benefits, barring his personal injury claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Kajima established a prima facie case of special employment, which the plaintiff failed to rebut with a triable issue of fact. Consequently, the plaintiff was barred from recovering damages for personal injuries against Kajima under the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workplace accidentConstruction sitePersonal injurySummary judgmentSpecial employmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive remedyEmployer liabilityDegree of controlPrima facie showing
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fleming v. MaxMara USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Yvonne Fleming, an African-American woman and former Director of Human Resources and Payroll for MaxMara USA, Inc., sued her employer and two individual supervisors, John Gleeson and Luigi Caroggio, alleging race discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation in violation of Title VII and the New York City Human Rights Law. Fleming claimed that Gleeson made a racially charged comment, and both Gleeson and Caroggio subjected her to poor treatment and derogatory remarks. She also asserted retaliation after reporting alleged preferential treatment of Italian employees. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for Fleming's termination, including performance issues and failure to follow company protocols. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on all claims, finding that Fleming failed to establish a prima facie case for race discrimination (partially due to being replaced by another African-American woman), that the hostile work environment claims lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness or were time-barred, and that the retaliation claims did not overcome the defendants' legitimate business reasons.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIINew York City Human Rights LawSummary Judgment MotionAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CasePretext
References
63
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07307 [154 AD3d 538]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2017

Cortes v. Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order granting summary judgment to defendant Skanska USA Civil Northeast, Inc., and dismissing the complaint. Plaintiff Luis Cortes, an employee of Phoenix Constructors, a joint venture that included Skanska, fell from a stair tower. The court ruled that plaintiff's exclusive remedy against Skanska was workers' compensation, as Skanska was a member of his employer's joint venture. The plaintiff's arguments regarding the alter ego doctrine and an independent duty owed by Skanska were rejected, citing established case law which prohibits treating an employer as a dual legal personality.

Workers' CompensationJoint VentureExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLabor LawEmployer LiabilityDual Legal PersonalityStatutory InterpretationWorkplace Injury
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,044 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