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. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. 15-36090
Regular Panel Decision

In re Covelli

The U.S. Bankruptcy Court granted the Debtors' motion to reopen their Chapter 7 bankruptcy case and imposed sanctions on creditor William Clement for violating the discharge injunction. Clement had pursued a deficiency judgment in state court on a discharged mortgage debt, despite previous court orders. The Court found Clement in contempt and ordered him to withdraw the state court proceeding, imposing a daily penalty for non-compliance. The Court denied Clement's separate motion to declare an earlier Chapter 13 petition date as the effective date for the Chapter 7 discharge, reaffirming the June 15, 2015 Chapter 7 petition date.

BankruptcyDischarge InjunctionSanctionsMotion to ReopenPetition DateDeficiency JudgmentContemptChapter 7Chapter 13Automatic Stay
References
82
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesco, Inc. v. JOINT COUNCIL 13, UNITED SHOE WKRS. OF AMER.

The plaintiff, Genesco, Inc., a shoe manufacturer, sued Joint Council 13, United Shoe Workers of America, AFL-CIO, alleging four causes of action. The first cause of action claimed a breach of collective bargaining agreements and a no-strike clause. The second alleged violations of Section 303 of the L.M.R.A. by inducing other employers to cease doing business with Genesco. The third and fourth causes of action were common law torts alleging inducement of other labor organizations to breach contracts and a scheme to destroy Genesco's business. The court dismissed the first cause of action, finding no valid contract existed at the time of the strike. The second cause of action survived dismissal, while the third and fourth causes of action were dismissed with leave to amend, as they were deemed arguably within the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board.

Labor DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseArbitration ClauseUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations BoardJurisdictionPreemptionPendent JurisdictionDiversity Jurisdiction
References
22
Case No. Index No. 303087/12, 83924/12, 83996/12, 83739/13, 84015/15, 84057/15, 84072/15 Appeal No. 16728 Case No. 2020-04517
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2022

Rucinski v. More Restoration Co., Inc.

Plaintiff Zbigniew Rucinski, an employee of subcontractor Skylights By George Co., Inc., sustained a traumatic brain injury while working at a property owned by Kraus Management Inc. and managed by Franklin Kite Housing Development Fund Corporation. The defendants, Kraus Management and Franklin Kite, moved for summary judgment for contractual indemnification against Skylights and opposed Skylights's motion to dismiss common-law indemnification and contribution claims. The Supreme Court conditionally granted defendants' motion for contractual indemnification but granted Skylights's motion to dismiss the common-law claims. The Appellate Division reversed this decision. It found that conflicting expert opinions on whether Rucinski suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11 created a triable issue of fact, thus precluding summary judgment for Skylights on the common-law claims. Furthermore, the Appellate Division determined that the defendants were entitled to unconditional summary judgment on their contractual indemnification claim against Skylights, as the contract did not require a finding of Skylights's negligence.

Appellate DivisionSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryExpert WitnessTraumatic Brain InjurySubcontractor Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Arbitration Between District 15, International Ass'n of MacHinists & Aerospace Workers & Numberall Stamp & Tool Co.

This case concerns a petition filed by District 15, International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers, AFL-CIO, to confirm an arbitration award against Numberall Stamp and Tool Company, Inc. (Numberall-NY) and its alleged alter ego, Numberall-Maine. Numberall-NY, a New York corporation, moved its production facilities to Maine, resulting in a dispute over unpaid severance and vacation pay. An arbitrator found in favor of District 15, but Numberall-NY failed to comply. Numberall-Maine subsequently moved for summary judgment, asserting it was a separate entity not bound by the collective bargaining agreement. The court denied Numberall-Maine's motion, ruling that the relationship between the two corporations is a proper issue for the court, consistent with national labor policy concerning successor employers and arbitration duties.

Arbitration AwardLabor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionAlter Ego TheoryCorporate Veil PiercingSuccessor Employer LiabilityDiscovery OrderFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureSeverance Pay
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. ADJ20067702
Regular
Jun 13, 2025

NICOLE TRIPLETT vs. FEDEX GROUND PACKAGE SYSTEMS, INC., SEDGWICK CONCORD

Applicant Nicole Triplett sought reconsideration of a WCJ's order that reduced her attorney's fees from 15% to 10% of a $15,000 settlement with FedEx Ground Package Systems, Inc. The Appeals Board granted the petition, finding that the WCJ did not provide sufficient evidence or reasoning for the fee reduction and failed to give the petitioner due process by not allowing an opportunity to present evidence regarding the value of legal services. Consequently, the March 13, 2025 order was rescinded, and the case was returned to the trial level for further proceedings consistent with the opinion.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseAttorney's FeesWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeWCJ OrderFee Disclosure StatementLabor Code Section 5909Electronic Adjudication Management SystemDue Process
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1989

Smith v. Smith

In this case, the Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially granted equitable distribution of State lottery winnings by allocating 85% to the defendant husband and 15% to the plaintiff wife. The parties were married in 1982, and the defendant won $13.5 million in the lottery in 1985 through a pool with co-workers. Although the wife regularly played the lottery, the husband rarely did. The court found the winnings to be marital property but awarded the wife only 15% based on the ticket being acquired solely through the husband's efforts. On appeal, the judgment was unanimously reversed, with the appellate court determining that a more equitable distribution would be an equal division of the lottery winnings, citing the parties' equal contributions to the marriage, their treatment of it as a partnership, and the fact that the winnings were their only significant asset.

Equitable DistributionLottery WinningsMarital PropertySpousal ContributionsDomestic Relations LawProperty DivisionAppellate ReviewMatrimonial AssetsFinancial AssetsDissolution of Marriage
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 02142 [182 AD3d 670]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Matter of Narine v. Montefiore Med. Ctr.

Claimant Millicent Narine appealed two decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board initially denied her application for review of a WCLJ decision due to alleged non-compliance with 12 NYCRR 300.13(b), which mandates complete filling of form RB-89 for administrative review. Subsequently, the Board denied her request for reconsideration. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the Board abused its discretion. It determined that Narine's responses to questions 11, 12, and 15 on form RB-89 adequately identified the contested ruling and the exception, thus fulfilling the requirements of 12 NYCRR 300.13(b)(2)(ii). Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed the Board's August 1, 2018 decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings, while dismissing the appeal from the October 2, 2018 decision as academic.

Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ)Administrative ReviewForm RB-8912 NYCRR 300.13(b)Procedural ComplianceAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewClaimant RepresentationApplication for ReviewReconsideration Denial
References
8
Case No. 13 NY3d 940
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 16, 2010

People v. Rabb

Defendants Reginald Rabb and Steven Mason, operators of P&D Construction Workers Coalition, challenged the People’s eavesdropping warrant application, arguing a failure to exhaust normal investigative measures as required by CPL 700.15 (4). The investigation by the New York County District Attorney’s Labor Racketeering Unit began by targeting Akbar’s Community Services for coercive labor practices, which subsequently uncovered P&D’s similar activities and collusive efforts. Eavesdropping warrants were obtained against Rabb and Mason after initial investigative techniques like physical surveillance and undercover operations were deemed insufficient or dangerous to uncover the full scope of their criminal enterprise. Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions to suppress, and the Appellate Division affirmed, finding the application adequately justified the use of eavesdropping. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's judgment, concluding that there was record support for the lower courts' finding that normal investigative procedures were unlikely to succeed.

Eavesdropping WarrantWiretapInvestigative ProceduresExhaustion RequirementProbable CauseSuppression MotionEnterprise CorruptionGrand LarcenyLabor RacketeeringOrganized Crime
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,558 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