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

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. 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
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06021
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2021

Matter of Taylor v. Buffalo Psychiatric Ctr.

Claimant Gwendolyn Taylor sought workers' compensation benefits for a left shoulder injury, with her orthopedic surgeon's C-4.3 form indicating a 15% schedule loss of use (SLU), while an attached medical narrative specified 35%. The Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) based its proposed decision on the 15% SLU, which became final without objection from the unrepresented claimant. Upon discovering the discrepancy, claimant's counsel applied to reopen the decision, but the WCB denied the application. The Appellate Division reversed the WCB's denial, finding an abuse of discretion because the only proper medical opinion before the Board clearly indicated a 35% SLU, and the carrier had accepted this opinion without objection.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Medical DiscrepancyReopening ClaimAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewRotator Cuff InjuryDistal Clavicle ExcisionMedical NarrativeC-4.3 FormWorkers' Compensation Board Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2016

Taylor v. City of New York

Plaintiff Tiffany Taylor sued the City of New York and the Department of Environmental Protection alleging employment discrimination based on sex, race, color, and national origin, alongside retaliation and state law claims. Taylor claimed she was repeatedly denied promotion to PAA level two or three and hiring as an apprentice construction laborer or construction laborer due to discrimination, and endured a hostile work environment and retaliatory transfers. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court granted the motion in part and denied in part, allowing Taylor's sex discrimination claims related to the apprentice construction laborer position under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL to proceed. All other discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment claims were dismissed, largely due to timeliness or failure to state a claim.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentFailure to HireFailure to PromoteStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violations DoctrineTitle VII
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 1999

Taylor v. V.A.W. of America, Inc.

Scott Taylor, an employee of Vanguard, Inc. and Vanguard Organization, Inc., suffered personal injuries when he fell through a roof owned by V.A.W. of America, Inc. while performing repairs, having been supplied no safety devices. Taylor initially moved for partial summary judgment against VAW under Labor Law § 240 (1), which was denied, as was VAW's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Vanguard. On appeal, the court reversed the prior order, granting Taylor's motion for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and VAW's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Vanguard, concluding that VAW failed to provide required safety devices and was entitled to indemnification.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentElevated WorksiteScaffold LawSummary JudgmentIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 132 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