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

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees'union v. Day Care Council of Ny Inc.

Local 205, Community and Social Agency Employees’ Union petitioned for confirmation and enforcement of an arbitration award against the Day Care Council of New York, Inc. (DCC). The award arose from employee grievances against the now-closed Georgia-Livonia Day Care Center. The Union argued that the award should be interpreted as binding upon DCC, a multi-employer bargaining association, despite not explicitly naming DCC for relief. DCC contended it was not a party to the arbitration agreement in the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and therefore not obligated to arbitrate disputes involving itself. The court, after reviewing the CBA's language and the parties' past conduct, found no agreement by DCC to arbitrate. It also ruled that DCC's defenses were not time-barred by either the Federal Arbitration Act or New York C.P.L.R. § 7511, as these limitations do not apply to arguments challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement itself. Consequently, the Union's petition for confirmation and enforcement of the award against DCC was denied.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureMulti-Employer AssociationAgreement to ArbitrateFederal Arbitration ActLabor Management Relations ActConfirmation of AwardEnforcement of AwardSouthern District of New York
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walker v. Columbia University

The plaintiffs in this action filed their complaint on June 15, 1973, but failed to move for a class action determination within the required sixty days, missing the deadline by over four weeks. The court found that this delay hampered public business and that no valid excuse was offered for the untimeliness. Furthermore, the court concluded that the plaintiffs' attorneys' failure to adhere to clear rules indicates they would not adequately protect the class interests. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss the action as a class action was granted, and the plaintiffs' cross-motion for a class action determination was denied.

Untimely MotionClass Action DismissalProcedural RulesRule 23(c)(1)Rule 23(a)(4)Attorney ConductJudicial DiscretionDelayFailure to ProsecuteRule 11A(c)
References
4
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00704 [213 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Paka (Same Day Delivery Inc.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves Jacques Paka, a delivery driver, who applied for unemployment insurance benefits after working for Same Day Delivery Inc. The Department of Labor initially determined Paka was an employee, making Same Day liable for contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board initially overruled this, finding Paka to be an independent contractor. However, upon reconsideration requested by the Commissioner of Labor, the Board rescinded its prior decision and sustained the Department's original determination, finding an employment relationship. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting Same Day's arguments against the reopening of the case and finding substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion that Same Day exercised sufficient control over Paka to establish an employment relationship. The Court also affirmed that these findings apply to similarly situated individuals.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipControl TestAppellate ReviewUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawUnemployment BenefitsDelivery DriverSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connor v. Pier Sixty, LLC

Plaintiffs, servers assigned by a temporary service agency, initiated a putative class action against defendants Pier Sixty, LLC, AK Pier Sixty, LLC, and Abigail Kirsch, alleging violations of Labor Law § 196-d. The plaintiffs claim they never received a share of the mandatory gratuity charges imposed by the defendants on customers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees, and thus not protected by the statute, citing Bynog v Cipriani Group. The court denied the motion, ruling that the determination of an employment relationship is a factual assessment not suitable for a pre-answer motion to dismiss. The court noted that evidence suggested defendants exercised significant control over the temporary workers, a key factor in establishing an employment relationship.

Class ActionLabor Law § 196-dGratuity DisputeEmployee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusMotion to DismissFactual InquiryEmployer ControlTemporary WorkersWage Theft
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. ADJ6692231
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

DONALD BARNARD vs. SCHELLINGER CONSTRUCTION COMPANY, LINCOLN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY IN LIQUIDATION

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to clarify the commencement date of permanent disability indemnity payments. Despite a previous finding incorporating a DEU commutation suggesting an April 15, 2014 start date, the Board ruled that Labor Code section 4650 dictates entitlement begins the day after temporary disability ends. Therefore, applicant is entitled to permanent disability payments starting October 2, 2010, with a 15% increase commencing sixty days after April 15, 2014. The matter is returned for further proceedings to adjust benefits and attorney fees accordingly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWCJDEU commutationpermanent disabilitycommencement dateretroactive benefitsLabor Code § 4650Brower v. David Jones Construction
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gardner v. Catering by Henry Smith, Inc.

Plaintiffs Kevin Gardner and Pierre Vogelsang sued defendants Catering by Henry Smith, Incorporated and Henry H. Smith for unpaid overtime wages and unused vacation time, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. The plaintiffs accepted a Rule 68 offer of judgment from the defendants. Subsequently, the plaintiffs moved to recover attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to Rule 54 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court found that the motion for attorneys' fees was filed after the 14-day deadline stipulated by Rule 54, and no justification for the delay was provided. Similarly, the motion for costs was filed beyond the 30-day period set by S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y. Local Civil Rule 54.1(a) without good cause. Therefore, the Court denied both motions.

Overtime WagesUnused Vacation TimeFLSANew York Labor LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 68Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 54Attorneys' FeesCostsTimelinessFinal Judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosen v. Dick

The Trustee of Bermec Corp. sued Arthur Andersen & Co. for negligence, among other claims. Andersen moved for partial summary judgment, asserting the negligence claims were barred by the statute of limitations. The parties had an agreement extending the limitation period if an action was "instituted" by March 31, 1974. Although the complaint was filed on March 21, 1974, Andersen was not served until April 2, 1974. The court ruled that under New York Civil Practice Law and Rules § 203(b)5, a claim is timely if the summons and complaint are delivered to the appropriate officer and served within sixty days. Applying this state law principle, the court found the action was timely instituted and denied Andersen's motion for partial summary judgment.

Statute of LimitationsNegligencePartial Summary JudgmentFederal Bankruptcy ActCommencement of ActionService of ProcessFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesErie DoctrinePendent Jurisdiction
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 8,189 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