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

Taylor v. United States

Plaintiffs George A. Taylor and Sally Taylor brought an action against the United States under the Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) for personal injuries Mr. Taylor sustained on February 4, 1994. Mr. Taylor slipped on icy snow while entering the Cicero-Clay Post Office in Cicero, New York. The case was tried without a jury, commencing on November 16, 1998, in Syracuse, New York. Plaintiffs alleged negligence, claiming the defendant failed to maintain safe premises, but the defendant denied negligence and lack of notice. Applying New York state law, the court required proof that the defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous icy conditions. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to present sufficient evidence to establish that the defendant had either actual or constructive notice of the sidewalk's dangerous condition prior to the incident, as no complaints were made before Taylor's slip. Consequently, the court dismissed the complaint, concluding that the plaintiffs did not establish negligence on the part of the defendant.

Federal Tort Claims ActFTCANegligenceSlip and FallIcy ConditionsPost OfficePremises LiabilityActual NoticeConstructive NoticeFederal Court
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 1994

United States v. Taylor

Matthew Taylor, a co-founder of United Brooklyn (UB), was convicted of attempted extortion and extortion under the Hobbs Act at two construction sites where Flintlock Construction Company was the principal contractor. Taylor moved for a judgment of acquittal, arguing insufficient evidence linked him directly to extorting "money for a Coordinator and employment for members of United Brooklyn" as charged in Counts Twenty-Two and Twenty-Four. He also sought a new trial citing recanted testimony from a key witness, Andrew Weiss. The court denied both motions, concluding that the evidence, including Taylor's role as the de facto head of UB and his active involvement in its extortionate schemes, sufficiently supported the conviction under an aiding and abetting theory. The court found that the alleged recantation was not material and did not undermine the verdict, given the compelling evidence of Taylor's guilt in a "long and persistent scheme" of extortion.

Hobbs ActExtortionAttempted ExtortionConspiracyAiding and AbettingConstruction IndustryRacketeeringOrganized CrimeMotion for AcquittalMotion for New Trial
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State ex rel. Dunn v. Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children

Maureen M. Dunn filed a writ of habeas corpus to regain custody of "Baby Girl" Dunn, born April 6, 1986, after executing a surrender for adoption to Catholic Home Bureau for Dependent Children (CHB) on May 1, 1986. The child was placed with prospective adoptive parents, John and Mary Doe, on April 10, 1986. Dunn attempted to revoke her surrender on May 21, 1986, within the 30-day period stipulated by Social Services Law § 384(5). The adoptive parents moved to dismiss or transfer the case, arguing against Supreme Court jurisdiction. The court retained jurisdiction and, following hearings, addressed Dunn's claims of fraud, duress, or coercion in the surrender's execution, which it ultimately denied despite concerns about CHB's procedures and a witness's credibility. The court also clarified the application of Social Services Law §§ 383(6) and 384(5) regarding the natural mother's rights post-surrender, ruling that Dunn lost her presumption of superiority once the child was placed in an adoptive home, requiring the custody determination to be based solely on the child's best interests. Considering the stability, financial security, and family ties of the adoptive parents versus the natural mother's temporary employment, uncertain support from the natural father, and past substance use during pregnancy, the court found it in the child's best interest to remain with the adoptive parents and be adopted by them.

AdoptionChild CustodyHabeas CorpusSurrender of Parental RightsBest Interests of the ChildParental RightsSocial Services LawRevocation of SurrenderFraudDuress
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Tarpon Cove, Ltd. & Taylor Woodrow Blitman Property Corp. of Florida

Tarpon, a Florida property owner, entered a management and development agreement with Taylor, which included a New York arbitration clause. After Tarpon unilaterally terminated the agreement, a dispute arose over termination and reimbursement costs. Tarpon initiated an action in Florida, prompting Taylor to demand arbitration for both parties' claims. Special Term initially granted Tarpon's motion to stay arbitration, ruling the clause was nullified by termination. The appellate court reversed, holding that a unilateral termination does not extinguish a broad arbitration clause and that issues regarding the agreement's termination and alleged breaches are matters for arbitration. The court also ordered a stay of the related Florida action pending arbitration.

Arbitration AgreementContract TerminationStay of ArbitrationCompelling ArbitrationCross-MotionFlorida LitigationNew York LawUnilateral TerminationBreach of ContractAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04288
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2021

Taylor v. Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc.

Plaintiff Michael A. Taylor, an employee of Durham Staffing, Inc., was assigned to work at Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc. and was injured there. He commenced an action against Piatkowski Riteway Meats, Inc., which moved for summary judgment, asserting that Taylor was a special employee and his claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion. However, the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed the order, finding that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing as a matter of law that it exercised complete control over the plaintiff's work, thus raising a triable issue of fact regarding the special employee doctrine. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was denied, and the complaint reinstated.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' CompensationSummary Judgment ReversalAppellate DivisionEmployer ControlStaffing Agency LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTriable Issue of FactComplaint ReinstatementLabor Law Litigation
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05983
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 06, 2018

Matter of Taylor v. Little Angels Head Start

Claimant, Laverne Taylor, sought workers' compensation benefits for a bilateral knee condition, alleging it was work-related due to changes in her job duties at Little Angels Head Start. She filed her claim over a year after leaving employment, and the employer controverted it due to lack of timely notice under Workers' Compensation Law § 18. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially awarded benefits, the Workers' Compensation Board reversed the decision, denying the claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the employer lacked actual knowledge of a work-related injury and was prejudiced by the delay, as Taylor did not inform them of the work-related nature of her condition until much later.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsTimely NoticeWorkers' Compensation Law § 18Causally-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceBilateral Knee ConditionMedical Leave
References
3
Case No. ADJ3493641 (LBO 0341797) ADJ1865304 (LBO 0341798)
Regular
May 06, 2010

NOE BENAVIDES vs. TAYLOR DUNN MFG

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend a prior award. The applicant, Noe Benavides, was denied temporary disability benefits after his termination for cause, as his wage loss was not due to his industrial injury. However, the Board affirmed the 27% permanent disability rating, finding the disability evaluator adequately justified the rating methodology. The award also addresses the recovery of unemployment benefits paid during overlapping periods.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardTaylor Dunn MfgNoe BenavidesJoint Findings and AwardTemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent Disability RatingReconsiderationAgreed Medical ExaminerAMEModified Duty
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dunne v. Comm'r of Soc. Sec.

Plaintiff Michelle Marie Dunne sought judicial review of the Social Security Commissioner's final decision denying her applications for disability insurance benefits (DIB) and supplemental security income (SSI). She alleged disability due to various conditions including essential tremors, bipolar disorder, and asthma, with an onset date of October 15, 2012. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found her severe impairments to be affective disorder, obesity, and essential tremors, but concluded she retained the residual functional capacity (RFC) for light work with specific limitations. Based on vocational expert testimony, the ALJ determined there were jobs in the national economy she could perform and thus found her not disabled. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence and free from legal error, specifically addressing Plaintiff's arguments regarding the weighing of treating physician opinions, the RFC assessment, and the evaluation of her tremors.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActDIBSSIEssential tremorsBipolar disorderPTSDMental healthResidual functional capacityTreating physician opinion
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Taylor

The Departmental Disciplinary Committee initiated proceedings for the immediate suspension of attorney Emani Pamela Taylor from the practice of law. This action was based on her willful failure to cooperate with the Committee's investigation and uncontested evidence of professional misconduct. Specifically, Taylor, acting as a guardian, allegedly withdrew over $327,000 from a guardianship account without court authorization and failed to disclose these withdrawals in her legal fee affirmations. Despite her arguments of implicit authorization and judicial notice, the court found her explanations unconvincing and her lack of cooperation deliberate. Consequently, the court granted the Committee's motion, suspending Taylor from practicing law effectively immediately due to the serious nature of her misconduct threatening public interest.

attorney misconductdisciplinary actioninterim suspensionguardian misconductunauthorized withdrawalsfailure to cooperateprofessional responsibilitylegal ethicsguardianship fundsNew York disciplinary proceeding
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Henderson

Pierre C. Taylor filed a Title VII race discrimination lawsuit against the United States Postal Service following disciplinary action. The Postal Service moved to dismiss, alleging Taylor failed to exhaust administrative remedies by filing an untimely formal EEO complaint and failing to cooperate with investigators. The court denied the motion, ruling that Taylor's complaint was timely because the deadline fell on a weekend, extending it to the next business day. Furthermore, the court found his alleged non-cooperation immaterial as it occurred after 180 days, at which point his right to sue had already vested. Thus, Taylor was free to bring his lawsuit.

Title VIIRace DiscriminationEmployment LawAdministrative RemediesExhaustion of RemediesTimelinessFormal EEO ComplaintStatute of LimitationsRight to SueFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 173 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