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

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2009

Trzaska v. Allied Frozen Storage, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to sever workers' compensation claims from their personal injury action. The appellate court, composed of Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Green, and Gorski, JJ., unanimously affirmed the lower court's decision, upholding the denial of the severance motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSeverance MotionAppellate ReviewSupreme CourtErie CountyOrder Denial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 08, 2009

Robinson v. National Vacuum Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied the plaintiffs' motion to sever workers’ compensation claims from their personal injury action. The appeal was heard by Scudder, P.J., Martoche, Peradotto, Green and Gorski, JJ. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the original order, concurring with the reasons stated in the Supreme Court's decision.

AppealSeveranceWorkers' Compensation ClaimsPersonal Injury ActionMotion DenialSupreme Court OrderAffirmationJudicial ReviewErie County
References
0
Case No. SCR No. 40/12; SCR No. 41/12
Regular Panel Decision

Norris v. Social Services Employee Union 371

This small claims action, consolidated for trial, involved two former union staff members, Aubrey Norris and Reuben Adeshuko, suing SSEU Local 371 for alleged underpayment of severance. Claimants argued that a long-standing union practice entitled them to three weeks' severance pay upon termination, but they only received two weeks after new leadership took over on May 2, 2011. The defendant contended that the standard policy was two weeks' severance and that the new leadership formally instituted this policy on May 4, 2011. The court found no written severance policy, which violated Labor Law § 195, and concluded that the credible evidence supported the claimants' reliance on a three-week severance practice. The judgment was entered in favor of the claimants for the outstanding severance amount plus interest.

Severance Pay DisputeUnion EmploymentLabor Law ViolationStatute of FraudsOral Policy EnforcementEmployment TerminationWorkers' RightsAFSCME RegulationsConsolidated CasesNew York Courts
References
2
Case No. 2014-1083 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2017

VNP Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Commerce Ins. Co.

Plaintiff VNP Acupuncture, P.C., acting as an assignee, initiated this action to recover first-party no-fault benefits for services provided to eight assignors following three separate motor vehicle accidents. The defendant, American Commerce Insurance Company, cross-moved to sever several causes of action (first, third through fifth, and seventh), arguing they stemmed from different accidents and involved distinct legal and factual questions. The Civil Court of the City of New York initially denied the defendant's severance request. Upon appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, determined that the claims related to the severed causes of action, specifically concerning lack of medical necessity, were factually and legally dissimilar to the remaining claims about whether injuries arose from an insured incident. Consequently, the Appellate Term reversed the lower court's decision and granted the defendant's cross-motion to sever the specified causes of action.

No-fault benefitsMotor Vehicle AccidentsSeverance of ActionsMedical NecessityIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureAssigneeInsurance LawTrial Court Reversal
References
4
Case No. 88 Civ. 1534
Regular Panel Decision

Barbagallo v. General Motors Corp.

Plaintiff Thomas L. Barbagallo filed a class action lawsuit against General Motors Corporation (GM) in New York, alleging age discrimination related to its Special Separation Program. The program offered varied separation incentives based on employee age and length of service, notably restricting severance pay to employees under age 53. GM sought summary judgment, asserting that its program, including severance pay provisions, falls under the federal Employment Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA), thus preempting New York's age discrimination laws. The Court analyzed whether the severance pay provisions, both in isolation and as an integrated part of the overall program, constituted an employee welfare benefit plan under ERISA, differentiating it from one-time severance payments. Concluding that GM's Special Separation Program, with its severance pay components, is governed by ERISA, the Court found Barbagallo's state law age discrimination claim preempted and granted GM's motion for summary judgment.

Summary JudgmentERISA PreemptionAge DiscriminationSeverance PayEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanSpecial Separation ProgramFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment LawState Law ClaimsStatute of Limitations
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Yamillette G.

This case concerns the death of 19-month-old Hailey G. and the subsequent motion for summary judgment filed by the Administration for Children’s Services against the respondent mother, Marlene M., and the respondent father, Edwin G. The motion sought findings of abuse and severe abuse following their criminal convictions for manslaughter related to Hailey's death. The court granted the motion in part, affirming findings of abuse and derivative abuse against both respondents under the Family Court Act. It also found Marlene M. severely abused Hailey and both respondents derivatively severely abused Yamillette under Social Services Law. The decision clarified the application of severe abuse findings, particularly for a non-parent of the deceased child.

Child FatalityManslaughter ConvictionSevere Child AbuseDerivative AbuseSummary JudgmentParental Rights TerminationFamily Court ActSocial Services LawChild Protective ServicesDepraved Indifference
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1996

Eymer v. Ground Round, Inc.

Plaintiffs Jeffrey Eymer and Patrick Lappin sued The Ground Round, Inc. and its Severance Pay Plan, asserting claims under ERISA for denied severance pay, breach of contract for unpaid vacation days, and age discrimination for Eymer. Defendants moved for partial summary judgment on multiple claims. The court granted summary judgment for the defendants on Claims 3 and 8 but denied it for the remaining ERISA severance pay, breach of contract for vacation pay, and age discrimination claims. The court found material issues of fact existed regarding the arbitrary and capricious nature of the severance pay denial, disputes over vacation pay policy application, and a potential discriminatory animus concerning age, warranting further proceedings.

ERISAAge DiscriminationBreach of ContractSeverance PayVacation PaySummary Judgment MotionConflict of Interest PolicyEmployment LawEmployee BenefitsArbitrary and Capricious Standard
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham v. American Home Mortgage Servicing, Inc.

Plaintiffs, a group of several hundred current and former homeowners, brought an action against several dozen mortgage originators and servicers, alleging various claims including fraud, misrepresentation, unlawful trade practices, breach of contract, negligence, and slander of title, primarily related to inflated appraisals and the Mortgage Electronic Registration Systems (MERS) system. Defendants filed motions to sever and dismiss. The Court granted the defendants' motion to sever, dismissing all plaintiffs except the first-named plaintiff, Leela Abraham, without prejudice due to misjoinder under Rule 20 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court then found that Ms. Abraham failed to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6) for all her asserted causes of action, citing lack of specificity for fraud-based claims, failure to plead activity in New York for GBL § 349 claims, inadequate contract terms for breach of contract, and other deficiencies. Consequently, all of Ms. Abraham's claims were dismissed in their entirety. The Court also denied the plaintiffs' motion to file a third amended complaint, concluding that the proposed amendments would be futile.

Mortgage LitigationHomeowner ClaimsFraudulent AppraisalsMERS SystemMisjoinderRule 12(b)(6) DismissalFailure to State a ClaimMotion to SeverAmended Complaint FutilityClass Action Fairness Act (CAFA)
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 1,738 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