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

In re Jason B.

The case involves a petition by the Commissioner of Social Services to adjudicate 9-month-old Jason B. and his two siblings as neglected children. The respondent mother made threats to harm her children, stating she would "take the children with her" and asking "What do I have to do to get help, something stupid like dangling one of my kids over the ferry?". The court found that these threats, coupled with the mother's history of mental illness, including diagnoses of "Schizophrenia with Borderline Features" and "Major Depression, Recurrent with Psychotic Features", established an imminent danger to the children. The court ruled that evidence of present or past harm is not required when a parent exhibits a capacity to carry out serious threats, thereby adjudicating the children neglected. They were continued on remand to the Commissioner of Social Services pending a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectParental ThreatsMental IllnessImminent DangerFamily Court ActChild ProtectionSchizophreniaMajor DepressionPreponderance of EvidenceRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. ADJ9781533
Regular
Aug 02, 2017

Rodolfo Boate vs. Truegreen Landcare, Zurich American Insurance Company

This case involves Rodolfo Boate's workers' compensation claim against Truegreen Landcare and Zurich American Insurance Company for injuries sustained during an altercation with a coworker. The defendant argued the claim was barred because Boate was the initial aggressor, citing his physical advance towards the coworker. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied reconsideration of the Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) finding that Boate's actions were in reasonable fear of bodily harm due to the coworker's prior severe threats and aggressive behavior. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's credibility determinations, finding no substantial evidence to reject them. Therefore, Boate's injury was deemed industrial.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRODOLFO BOATETRUGREEN LANDCAREZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANYADJ9781533Petition for ReconsiderationDeniedWCJCredibility determinationsGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1993

Meadows v. State University of New York at Oswego

Plaintiffs Ms. Meadows and Ms. Smouse, employees at SUNY Oswego, sought a preliminary injunction against the university and several individuals, alleging harassment and retaliation. Their claims stemmed from perceived involvement in a Title IX complaint, which they contended led to Ms. Smouse's non-renewal and pressure on Ms. Meadows. Plaintiffs argued these actions created a "chilling effect" on their First Amendment rights. The court, presided over by District Judge SCULLIN, denied the motion for a preliminary injunction. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to establish irreparable harm, concluding that an interim injunction would not alleviate the alleged "chill" arising from the threat of permanent discharge, nor did Ms. Meadows's asserted harassment meet the irreparable harm standard.

Preliminary InjunctionFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechRetaliationHarassmentTitle IXEmployment DiscriminationChilling EffectIrreparable HarmPublic Employees Fair Employment Act
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirkup v. American International Adjustment Co.

The plaintiff, a bricklayer, sustained a serious back injury and subsequently sued his employer’s workers’ compensation insurance carrier and its employees, alleging improper denial of benefits, lack of medical treatment, and breach of good faith. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that the Workers’ Compensation Law provided the exclusive remedy, but the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, denied their motion. On appeal, the order was reversed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted. The appellate court found the Workers’ Compensation Law to be the exclusive remedy for work-related injuries. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional harm.

Workers' Compensation LawBreach of Insurance ContractIntentional Infliction of Emotional HarmExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInsurance Carrier LiabilityWork-Related InjuryMedical BenefitsSanctions
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kimberly H.

This derivative neglect proceeding concerns Kimberly H., a newborn infant whose older siblings were removed from their mother's home due to findings of excessive corporal punishment shortly before Kimberly's birth. The Family Court initially found Kimberly not to be at imminent risk and conditionally released her to her mother. However, the Appellate Court reversed this decision, citing the recent neglect findings regarding Kimberly's siblings and their continued placement in foster care. The court determined that protection from an established threat of harm must take precedence over infant-parent bonding. Consequently, Kimberly was remanded to the custody of the Commissioner of the petitioner agency pending a full fact-finding hearing.

Derivative neglectCorporal punishmentImminent riskChild removalFoster careParental rightsFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionChild protectionParental therapy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Shenker

The defendants, Shenker and Djavadi, were charged with criminal trespass and obstructing governmental administration after attempting to prevent the City of New York from bulldozing Esperanza Garden on February 15, 2000. They sought to present a justification defense, arguing their actions were necessary to prevent a greater harm – the destruction of the garden. The People moved to preclude this defense. Justice Robert M. Stole, presiding over the case, granted the People's motion. The court found that the justification defense under Penal Law § 35.05 (2) was not applicable, as the defendants failed to demonstrate an imminent public injury comparable to threats to life or community safety, and did not pursue reasonable legal alternatives during the available time.

Justification DefenseCriminal TrespassObstructing Governmental AdministrationCommunity GardensEnvironmental ProtestPenal Law 35.05Choice of EvilsEmergency MeasureImminent Public InjuryLegal Alternatives
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nathan's Famous, Inc. v. Local. 1115

Plaintiff sought a temporary injunction against a defendant union for mass picketing and violent conduct at its Coney Island restaurant following an expired collective bargaining agreement. The union's members allegedly shouted threats, massed over 40 pickets, threw objects, and attempted a firebombing, leading to arrests. Defendants admitted to a large number of pickets and arrests but largely denied other misconduct. The court found sufficient evidence of unlawful acts and potential irreparable harm to the plaintiff's business. Defendants' procedural objections regarding Labor Law § 807 and CPLR 6313 (subd. [a]) were rejected, as was the contention about defective complaint under General Associations Law § 13 and lack of New York State jurisdiction. The motion for injunction was granted conditionally.

InjunctionMass PicketingLabor DisputeUnion ConductViolenceTemporary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryJurisdictionCollective BargainingUnlawful Acts
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernbach v. Raz Dairy, Inc.

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), Karen P. Fernbach, initiated this action against Raz Dairy, Inc. and Metro Dairy Corp. for a temporary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor Relations Act. The petition alleged that the employers engaged in unfair labor practices, including unlawful interrogations, threats of plant closure and discharge, and the termination of employee Luis Munoz for his union activities. The court found reasonable cause to believe the respondent had committed these practices, noting evidence of anti-union animus, disparate treatment, and pretextual reasons for Mr. Munoz's dismissal. Concluding that immediate injunctive relief was just and proper to prevent irreparable harm to employees' Section 7 rights and restore the pre-violation status quo, the court granted the petition.

Labour LawUnfair Labor PracticesNLRA Section 10(j)Temporary InjunctionEmployee RightsUnionizationCoercionInterrogationRetaliatory DischargeReinstatement
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Edward L.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of retention issued by the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which continued the appellant's involuntary commitment at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center. The appellate court reviewed the evidence supporting the retention, specifically focusing on whether the hospital had established by clear and convincing evidence that the appellant was mentally ill and posed a substantial threat of physical harm to himself or others, as required by Mental Hygiene Law § 9.27. The court found the evidence, primarily based on the testimony of Dr. Alain Kruh and hospital records, to be insufficient to justify continued retention. Dr. Kruh's opinions, which relied on past incidents and the appellant's lack of insight, were deemed to lack adequate substantiation of current dangerousness. Consequently, the order for continued retention was reversed, and Pilgrim Psychiatric Center was directed to release the appellant, affirming the appellant's constitutional right to liberty when the threshold for involuntary commitment is not met.

Mental Health LawInvoluntary CommitmentPsychiatric HospitalRight to LibertyDue ProcessClear and Convincing EvidenceDanger to Self or OthersSufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewPatient Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377

The Attorney-General initiated an action seeking a permanent injunction against the Distributors Division, Smoked Fish Workers Union, Local No. 20377, its president Murray Brodsky, and business agent Jack Flaum. The complaint alleged that the defendants engaged in an illegal combination, violating New York's Donnelly Anti-Trust Law (General Business Law § 340), by coercing manufacturers and retailers in the smoked fish industry to deal exclusively with Distributors Division members. Although the defendants claimed exemption as a bona fide labor union, the court found that the Distributors Division was merely a jobbers association disguised as a union to create a monopoly and restrain trade. The organization's activities involved threats, intimidation, and misleading picketing to compel adherence to its demands, ultimately harming competition and forcing retailers to pay higher prices. Consequently, the court ruled that the injunction should be granted, concluding that the Distributors Division was not a legitimate labor union and its practices were illegal.

anti-trustmonopolylabor unioninjunctiontrade restraintGeneral Business LawDonnelly Actjobbers associationcoercionpicketing
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,054 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