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

Cortes v. City of New York

Plaintiff Frankie Cortes, a former Corrections Officer with the New York City Department of Correction, filed an action alleging retaliation and discrimination based on gender and race under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, 1985, and New York state and city human rights laws. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint in its entirety. The Court dismissed Title VII claims against individual defendants and sex discrimination-based Section 1981 claims with prejudice. The Section 1985 conspiracy claim was dismissed with leave to replead. However, the Court denied the motion to dismiss retaliation and racial discrimination claims under Section 1981, as well as First Amendment retaliation and Equal Protection claims under Section 1983. Motions to dismiss based on statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies for Title VII hostile work environment and SHRL/CHRL claims were also denied, without prejudice to renewal at a later stage.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationGender DiscriminationRace DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983First AmendmentFourteenth Amendment
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tardd v. Brookhaven National Laboratory

Malry Tarrd and Otto White sued Brookhaven National Laboratory (BNL) and several individual employees, alleging racial discrimination, retaliation, and breach of contract under Title VII, Title VI, 42 U.S.C. sections 1981, 1985(3), 1986, and the NYSHRL. Plaintiffs described a hostile work environment, racial slurs, a Ku Klux Klan hood incident, and denied promotions. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint on various grounds, including failure to state a claim, statute of limitations, and the federal enclave doctrine. The Court partially granted the dismissal motion, notably dismissing certain individual Section 1981 and NYSHRL claims, all Section 1985 and 1986 claims, and most breach of contract claims, while allowing Tardd's breach of settlement agreement claim to proceed. The Court also denied the defendants' motion regarding the federal enclave doctrine and rejected the plaintiffs' request for Rule 11 sanctions.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VII42 U.S.C. Section 1981NYSHRLMotion to DismissJudgment on PleadingsFederal Enclave DoctrineElection of Remedies
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1998

Cataudella v. Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc.

Plaintiff Alfred Cataudella sought damages for personal injuries, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants Kings Bay Housing Section II, Inc., and Elm Management Co. moved for summary judgment to dismiss this claim, which was initially granted but later denied by the Supreme Court upon the plaintiffs' successful motion for renewal and reargument. On appeal, the higher court modified the lower court's decision, ruling that Labor Law § 240 (1) did not apply as the plaintiff's injuries were not from an elevation-related hazard. Consequently, the appellate court denied the plaintiffs' motion for renewal and reargument, thus effectively granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Furthermore, the third-party defendant Walcat Plumbing and Heating Corp.'s motion to vacate an order of default was affirmed.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppealLabor Law § 240 (1)Elevation-Related HazardDefault JudgmentVacate DefaultProcedural LawNew York LawAppellate Division
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02008 [237 AD3d 429]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 03, 2025

Hartrum v. Montefiore Hosp. Hous. Section II Inc.

Plaintiff Kyle Hartrum, an employee of Electronic Service Solutions, Inc. (ESS), sustained severe arm lacerations while removing communications equipment from a building roof owned by Montefiore Hospital Housing Section II Inc. The accident occurred when a piece of sheet metal being hand-hoisted swung and struck him. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's decision, granting Hartrum summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against Monte Housing, SBA Site Management, LLC, Flo TV Incorporated, and KMB Design Group, LLC. The court also dismissed Hartrum's Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against all defendants and granted several contractual indemnity claims among the parties, including Montefiore, SBA, Flo, KMB, and ESS.

Labor Law § 240(1) LiabilitySafe Place to WorkSummary Judgment GrantContractual IndemnificationConstruction Site AccidentHoisting SafetyAppellate Division ReviewLessor/Sublessor LiabilityMeans and Methods of WorkNegligence Dismissal
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benavidez v. TRAVELERS INDEMNITY COMPANY OF CONNECTICUT

This case addresses two key issues concerning judicial review of a Texas Workers' Compensation Commission Appeals Panel decision. The first issue is when a party seeking judicial review is required to file a copy of its petition with the Commission under Texas Labor Code section 410.253. The second issue is whether untimely notice to the Commission under this section deprives the trial court of jurisdiction over the judicial review action. The court of appeals had previously held that the filing was required within forty days of the Appeals Panel decision and was mandatory and jurisdictional. However, the Supreme Court, referencing Albertson’s, Inc. v. Sinclair, clarifies that the petition must be filed with the Commission on the same day it is filed in the trial court, and while timely filing is mandatory, it is not jurisdictional. Consequently, the court of appeals' judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded to the trial court for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAppeals Panel DecisionTimely FilingJurisdictionMandatory RequirementTexas Labor CodeCourt of Appeals ReversalRemandCivil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2014

Weslowski v. Zugibe

Plaintiff John L. Weslowski brought an action against Patricia Zugibe, Jeffrey J. Fortunato, and the County of Rockland, alleging wrongful termination and discrimination based on his sexual orientation after he viewed "gay male sexual content" on a County computer. The Court considered Defendants' motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint, which included claims under Sections 1983 and 1985, and a "Decisional Autonomy/Liberty" claim. The Court granted the motion, dismissing the Equal Protection claim as insufficiently pleaded and time-barred, the Section 1985 claim due to the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine, and the "Decisional Autonomy/Liberty" claim as lacking legal basis. Supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims was declined.

Employment DiscriminationWrongful TerminationEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentDue ProcessComputer Use PolicySexual Orientation DiscriminationMotion To DismissLaw of the CaseStatute of Limitations
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Ornellas v. Roger Maffei, Inc.

The claimant injured his neck in 1970, and despite medical bills being paid by the carrier, no compensation was issued due to a lack of disability exceeding seven days. The case was closed in 1973 after a Referee found no causal link between a subsequent laminectomy and the initial injury. In 1977, a new medical bill prompted the Workers’ Compensation Board to reopen the case, examining liability under Workers' Compensation Law sections 123 and 25-a. Both a Referee and the Board initially found these sections inapplicable. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision regarding section 123 but reversed its finding on section 25-a, ruling the Special Fund for Reopened Cases liable, and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with this determination.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial Fund LiabilityReopened CasesStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aWorkers' Compensation Law § 123Medical Expense LiabilityCausationDisabilityAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cattan v. City of New York

The plaintiff sued the City of New York, the New York Police Department, and Officer George Colberg after an arrest for disorderly conduct and harassment in Central Park, alleging constitutional rights violations under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1985, and state common law claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment. The court found the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of an official policy or custom for Section 1983 municipal liability and could not prove gross negligence in Officer Colberg's employment. Furthermore, the Section 1985 claim lacked allegations of racial discrimination or a conspiracy implicating the county. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and all federal and pendent common law claims against the City and NYPD were dismissed.

Section 1983Section 1985Summary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityPolice MisconductExcessive ForceDeliberate IndifferenceGross NegligenceFalse ArrestAssault and Battery
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hickey-McAllister v. British Airways

Plaintiff, an employee of British Airways, challenged the revocation of her identification hologram and access to Customs Service security areas, suing British Airways, Allan Smith, Robert Rubin, the Customs Service, and Frank Anton. She alleged First Amendment retaliation by Anton, conspiracy under Section 1985(3) against multiple defendants, and New York State Human Rights Law claims for gender discrimination. The court dismissed the Bivens claim against Anton due to qualified immunity, the Section 1985(3) claims for insufficient particularity and lack of state action, and the NYSHRL claims by declining supplemental jurisdiction. However, the plaintiff's Fifth Amendment claim against the Customs Service for violating its own regulations regarding notice and hearing was not dismissed, based on the Accardi doctrine.

First Amendment RightsFifth Amendment RightsQualified ImmunityBivens ClaimSection 1985(3) ClaimConspiracyPublic Concern SpeechRetaliationCustoms Service RegulationsAccardi Doctrine
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 5,074 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