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. 01 Civ. 2254
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2004

Roane v. Greenwich Swim Committee

This tort action stems from injuries sustained by Stephen Roane during a one-mile swim event in Long Island Sound and a subsequent rescue attempt. Plaintiffs, Stephen and Margot Roane, sued the event organizer Greenwich Swim Committee (GSC), boat owner Walter McDermott, and boat manufacturer S2 Yachts, Inc. The court applied general maritime law. It granted S2's motions to preclude plaintiffs' expert witness and for summary judgment, finding the expert's methodology unreliable regarding design defects. However, the court denied GSC and McDermott's motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to strike their affirmative defenses of waiver and assumption of risk, deeming the waiver unenforceable and assumption of risk inapplicable in admiralty law. The case will proceed to trial against GSC and McDermott.

Maritime LawAdmiralty JurisdictionSummary JudgmentExpert Witness TestimonyDaubert StandardRule 702NegligenceProduct LiabilityWaiver of LiabilityAssumption of Risk
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. v. Pross

This case concerns a breach of contract action for swimming pool construction. The defendant sought to dismiss the plaintiffs' complaint, arguing that one of the plaintiff corporations, Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., lacked the required Nassau County home improvement license. Plaintiffs, Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc. and Swim World Pool and Spa, Inc., both owned by Jairo Arango, operated together, with Best Quality holding the necessary license. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, finding that denying payment would be an excessive penalty given that Best Quality was licensed, aligning with the rationale of Marraccini v Ryan. Additionally, the court granted the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint to include the licensing details for Best Quality Swimming Pool Service, Inc.

Home Improvement LicenseCorporate LiabilityBreach of ContractMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintNassau County Administrative CodeCPLR 3015(e)Licensing RequirementsCorporate VeilSubstantial Compliance
References
8
Case No. ADJ3191645 (GOL 0088223)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Edward Maschke vs. SANTA BARBARA COUNTY EMPLOYEES UNION, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration and rescinded the WCJ's denial of a Swim-ex device installation, finding insufficient evidence. The WCJ had deemed the $70,000 estimated cost prohibitive, but the Board noted this estimate was unsubstantiated and cost alone shouldn't dictate the decision. The matter is returned to the trial level for further development of evidence regarding the necessity and cost of the recommended treatment to cure or relieve the industrial injury. The decision to allow a change of treating physician was upheld, but the entire decision was rescinded to avoid bifurcating issues.

Petition for ReconsiderationSwim-ex deviceWCJindustrial injurytreating physicianmedical treatmentL1 burst fracturecauda equina injuryparesisback fusion surgery
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1998

People v. Tullo

In this case, the court addresses an application for an ex parte order of protection against a defendant charged with aggravated harassment in the second degree, stemming from a single threatening telephone call. The Assistant District Attorney sought the order based on new facts not included in the original accusatory instrument. Judge Joel B. Gewanter denied the application, interpreting CPL 530.13 (2) to limit ex parte orders of protection solely to factual allegations present within the filed accusatory instrument. The court emphasized the necessity of proper notice and an opportunity for the defendant to be heard. It suggested that for new charges, a new complaint and arrest would be the appropriate procedure for issuing such an order.

Aggravated HarassmentSecond DegreeEx Parte Order of ProtectionCriminal Procedure LawCPL 530.13MisdemeanorFirst ImpressionTelephone CallThreatening StatementDue Process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. No. 47
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2023

The People v. Superintendent, Woodbourne Correctional Facility

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether the Sexual Assault Reform Act's (SARA) school grounds condition, codified in Executive Law § 259-c (14), violates the Ex Post Facto Clause of the United States Constitution when applied to offenders whose crimes predated the 2005 SARA amendments. Petitioner Danny Rivera, convicted in 1986 and later designated a level three sexually violent offender, faced prolonged incarceration due to his inability to find SARA-compliant housing. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Rivera failed to demonstrate, by the clearest proof, that the SARA condition's effects are so punitive as to negate its civil intent, thereby not violating the Ex Post Facto Clause.

Ex Post Facto ClauseSexual Assault Reform Act (SARA)Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Residency RestrictionParole ConditionsIncarcerationRetroactive ApplicationConstitutional LawPunishmentCivil Remedy
References
83
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00908 [213 AD3d 1117]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Petre v. Allied Devices Corp.

Claimant Gheorghe Petre appealed a decision from the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The underlying Board decision had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's ruling, which amended the claimant's work-related injury claim and directed his doctor to seek prior authorization for Gabapentin. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reviewed the Board's denial, limiting its scope to whether the Board had abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily. Finding no new evidence, material change in condition, or improper consideration of issues by the Board, the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision. Thus, the claimant's appeal for reconsideration and/or full Board review was ultimately denied.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionReconsiderationInjury ClaimMedical ExpensesDrug FormularyGabapentinProcedural Due ProcessAdministrative Law
References
7
Case No. 100559/2014
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2020

State of N.Y. ex rel. Edelweiss Fund, LLC v. Jpmorgan Chase & Co.

This is a qui tam action brought by Edelweiss Fund, LLC on behalf of the State of New York against numerous financial institutions and their subsidiaries. The Relator alleges a fraudulent scheme involving the "robo-resetting" of interest rates for municipal Variable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs) and a conspiracy, in violation of the New York False Claims Act. Defendants, acting as remarketing agents, allegedly failed to set the lowest possible interest rates for VRDOs by using an algorithm and grouping unrelated bonds, thereby extracting excessive fees and benefiting their own money market funds. The court denied the defendants' joint motion to dismiss, finding the complaint sufficiently pleaded fraud and conspiracy under the NYFCA's heightened pleading standards. Additionally, M & T Bank Corporation's separate motion to dismiss was denied, as the court ruled that the NYFCA applies even to conduit bonds where government funds are involved, upholding a broad interpretation of the Act.

Qui Tam ActionFalse Claims ActNew York State Finance LawMunicipal BondsVariable Rate Demand Obligations (VRDOs)Interest Rate ManipulationRobo-Resetting SchemeFinancial InstitutionsRemarketing AgentsConspiracy
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.T. ex rel. N.M. v. New York City Department of Education

The plaintiff, M.T., on behalf of her son N.M., challenged the State Review Officer's (SRO) decision denying tuition reimbursement for N.M.'s placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. The SRO had reversed an Impartial Hearing Officer's (IHO) decision which found the New York City Department of Education (DOE) failed to provide N.M. with a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). The District Court found that the SRO improperly relied on retrospective testimony regarding the possibility of extending a 1:1 transitional paraprofessional beyond the four months provided in the Individualized Education Program (IEP). Citing recent Second Circuit precedent (R.E. and Reyes), the court ruled that such retrospective adjustments are impermissible. Due to the court's lack of educational expertise and the unclear centrality of this error to the SRO's decision, both parties' motions for summary judgment were denied, and the case was remanded to the state administrative officers for further consideration in light of the Reyes decision.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education ProgramSpecial EducationSummary JudgmentRemandState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerRetrospective TestimonyTransitional Paraprofessional
References
27
Case No. ADJ9376633, ADJ9378451
Regular
Oct 29, 2018

MARIA GONZALEZ vs. CRST VAN EX/CEDAR RAPIDS, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves applicant Maria Gonzalez and defendants CRST Van Ex/Cedar Rapids and New Hampshire Insurance Company. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a prior decision from August 13, 2018. The Board rescinded that decision and returned the matter to the workers' compensation administrative law judge for further proceedings and a new decision. This order is procedural and does not address the merits of the case.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportgrant reconsiderationrescind decisionfurther proceedingsDecision After Reconsiderationtrial leveladministrative law judgeADJ9376633
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 934 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