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
Dec 21, 2000

Clarke v. One Source Facility Services, Inc.

This case concerns Sylvester Clarke's claims of employment discrimination and retaliatory discharge under Title VII against One Source Facility Services, Inc. Clarke, an African-American male, alleged discrimination stemming from a refusal of non-union work, which he claimed led to his removal from a position and a series of adverse employment actions. He pursued these grievances through union complaints and two administrative complaints with the New York State Division of Human Rights in 1996 and 1998. The court granted summary judgment to the defendant on the discrimination claim, finding a lack of evidence for racial animus. However, the court denied summary judgment on the retaliation claim, concluding that genuine issues of material fact existed regarding a potential pattern of retaliatory conduct by the employer following Clarke's protected activities.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeTitle VIISummary JudgmentMcDonnell-Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextRacial DiscriminationUnion GrievanceAdministrative Complaint
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2010

Gunther v. Capital One, N.A.

Plaintiff Eric Gunther filed a class action against Capital One Bank and Capital One Financial Corporation, alleging improper banking fees. Gunther, a former North Fork Bank customer, became a Capital One Bank account holder after a merger. He claimed Capital One Bank increased fees, including ATM withdrawal and overdraft fees, without proper notice, charged 'Undeliverable Mail Fees,' deceptively marketed 'free checking,' and failed to provide fee schedule notifications. The Court dismissed most of Gunther's breach of contract claims, except for the 'Undeliverable Mail Fees' claim. Claims under the Connecticut Unfair Trade Practices Act and for unjust enrichment were also dismissed. A New York General Business Law § 349 claim was dismissed with leave to replead. The Court denied dismissal for the declaratory judgment claim against Capital One Bank. All claims against Capital One Financial were dismissed, as the plaintiff failed to establish direct or indirect liability through corporate veil piercing.

Consumer Class ActionBanking FeesBreach of ContractMotion to DismissCorporate Veil PiercingTruth in Savings Act (TISA)Unjust EnrichmentDeclaratory JudgmentStanding to SueNew York General Business Law
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wali v. One Source Co.

Plaintiff Abdul Karim Wali sued his former employer, One-Source, Inc., and two human resources employees, Gi Corderzo and Terry Vidal, alleging termination based on race, color, and religion in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Wali was a temporary employee terminated at the conclusion of his assignment, not due to discrimination. The court found Wali failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination, lacking evidence that similarly situated non-protected employees were treated more favorably. Furthermore, even if a prima facie case was established, Wali failed to show that the defendants' legitimate non-discriminatory reason (temporary employment) was a pretext for discrimination. The claim of religious discrimination was dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and individual claims against Cordero and Vidal were dismissed as Title VII does not provide for individual liability. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of Wali's claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationColor DiscriminationReligious Discrimination Claim DismissedPro Se LitigationDisparate TreatmentPretextual ReasonExhaustion of Remedies
References
76
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08303
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2017

Prevost v. One City Block LLC

Plaintiff Ronald Prevost, a laborer, was injured after slipping on a loose sprinkler pipe at a construction site owned by One City Block LLC. He and his wife sued One City for common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. One City then commenced a third-party action against Island Fire Sprinkler, Inc., the subcontractor responsible for installing the sprinkler system, seeking contractual and common-law indemnification and alleging breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. The Supreme Court denied various summary judgment motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, granting One City's motion for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, and granting One City's claim for contractual indemnification by Island Fire. The court also denied Island Fire's motion for summary judgment dismissing One City's claim against it for contractual indemnification and breach of contract for failure to procure insurance. Finally, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of One City's motion for post-note-of-issue discovery seeking additional independent medical examinations of plaintiff.

Construction accidentLabor LawPremises liabilitySummary judgmentContractual indemnificationBreach of contractInsurance procurementPost-note-of-issue discoveryIndependent medical examinationAppellate procedure
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2010

Blyer v. ONE STOP KOSHER SUPERMARKET, INC.

Alvin Blyer, Regional Director of NLRB Region 29, petitioned the District Court for interim relief against One Stop Kosher Supermarket, Inc. under 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). The Director sought an order compelling One Stop to bargain with Local 338, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, after One Stop failed to honor a recognition agreement. The administrative law judge (ALJ) found the recognition agreement binding. The District Court granted the petition, finding reasonable cause for unfair labor practices and irreparable harm to the Union's collective bargaining rights, ordering One Stop to provide information and bargain, but stipulating that any agreement not be implemented until the NLRB's final decision.

National Labor Relations BoardUnfair Labor PracticesInterim InjunctionCollective BargainingUnion RecognitionLabor LawDistrict CourtSection 10(j)Employer-Union RelationsMandatary Injunction
References
14
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05053 [208 AD3d 818]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 24, 2022

Thorpe v. One Page Park, LLC

Lorenzo Thorpe, an employee at a construction site owned by One Page Park, LLC, sustained injuries after falling into a 14-16 foot deep pit. He commenced a personal injury action against One Page Park, LLC and A-W Coon & Sons, Inc., alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability. Upon reargument, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action against One Page Park, LLC, citing elevation-related risk and triable issues of fact. The court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor Law Section 240(1)Elevation-Related HazardSummary Judgment MotionReargumentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseTriable Issue of FactProperty Owner Liability
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 02849 [204 AD3d 1348]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2022

Matter of Cruz (Strikeforce Staffing LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Strikeforce Staffing LLC liable for unemployment insurance contributions, classifying Nelson Ruiz Cruz and other workers as employees. Strikeforce, a staffing agency, connected Cruz with a bakery client, who managed his employment and daily tasks. Strikeforce's involvement largely consisted of initial screening and payroll processing based on client approvals. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's determination. The court ruled that there was not substantial evidence to support an employer-employee relationship, as Strikeforce did not exercise sufficient control over the means or results of the workers' services. The decision was remitted back to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipStaffing AgencyIndependent ContractorControl TestSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate DivisionWorkers' ClassificationRemuneration Liability
References
9
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 30920(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2008

Silverite Construction Co. v. One Beacon Insurance

Plaintiffs Silverite Construction Company, Inc. and the New York City Department of Environmental Protection's motion for summary judgment was denied, and defendant One Beacon Insurance Company's motion for summary judgment was granted and affirmed. The court rejected plaintiffs' excuse for their 2 1/2-month late notice of a worker's injury, citing evidence such as the worker's removal by ambulance, an accident report, missed work, limited duties upon return, and a filed notice of claim. One Beacon's disclaimer was deemed timely following a brief investigation into the plaintiffs' status as additional insureds. This decision highlights the necessity of timely notification in insurance claims, irrespective of the perceived likelihood of a claim.

Summary JudgmentInsurance LawLate NoticeWorker InjuryAdditional InsuredDisclaimerAppellate ReviewConstruction SiteAccident ReportTimely Notice
References
1
Case No. AHM 0135423
Regular
Mar 10, 2008

REYNA VENEGAS vs. DIVERSIFIED STAFFING SOLUTIONS, PARA

This case involves two petitions for reconsideration: one from the applicant, Reyna Venegas, and one from the defendant, Diversified Staffing Solutions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has denied the applicant's petition and dismissed the defendant's petition. The WCAB also corrected a clerical error in the underlying decision's heading, substituting "Workers' Compensation Appeals Board" for "Division of Workers' Compensation."

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeJudicial AuthorityOriginal JurisdictionDelegation of Judicial PowersTrialInitial DeterminationReconsiderationApplicant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

A claimant, a member of the Buffalo Destroyers football team, was injured and filed a workers' compensation claim with Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. Liberty Mutual denied coverage, arguing the claimant was not an employee of its insured, Source One Group, and that the policy could not cover a New York entity. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found the claimant a dual employee, then a special employee of the Destroyers and a general employee of Source One, entitling him to coverage. The court determined that while the claimant was not a de facto employee of Source One, Liberty Mutual was estopped from denying coverage due to its conduct, including issuing a certificate of insurance and accepting premiums. Therefore, the court affirmed the Board's decision, holding Liberty Mutual responsible for the claimant's workers' compensation benefits.

Insurance Coverage DisputeEmployer LiabilityProfessional Employee OrganizationSpecial Employment DoctrineEstoppel in InsuranceAssigned-Risk Insurance PolicySports Athlete InjuryAppellate DecisionPayroll Audit DisputeCertificate of Insurance Validity
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,882 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