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. 2022 NY Slip Op 00221 [201 AD3d 1140]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 2022

Matter of New Team, LLC (Commissioner of Labor)

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board assessed New Team, LLC for additional unemployment insurance contributions, determining an employment relationship with its brand ambassadors based on an audit from July 2010 to September 2013. New Team appealed this decision. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion that New Team exercised sufficient supervision, direction, or control over the brand ambassadors to establish an employment relationship for unemployment insurance purposes. The decision highlighted factors such as New Team's recruitment, training, scheduling, event monitoring, and reporting requirements for brand ambassadors.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorBrand AmbassadorsUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate Division Third DepartmentSubstantial EvidenceLabor Department AuditControl TestMarketing Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, Inc. v. Vallone

This case addresses whether the New York City Council adhered to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when enacting Local Law No. 38 (1999), intended for lead paint abatement. The City Council issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant adverse environmental impact. However, the Court of Appeals found this declaration insufficient, specifically noting a lack of reasoned explanation for excluding lead dust from the hazard definition and removing six-year-old children from the law's protections. This non-compliance with SEQRA's procedural mandates led to the nullification of Local Law 38, thereby reinstating Local Law 1 (1982). The Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and remitted the case, encouraging the involved parties to collaborate in safeguarding New York City's children from lead exposure.

Lead paint abatementEnvironmental lawSEQRA complianceLocal Law 38Local Law 1Negative declarationPublic health concernsChildhood lead poisoningAdministrative proceduresNew York City Council
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Lead Industries Ass'n

This appellate decision addresses an action brought by the City of New York, the New York City Housing Authority, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation against lead paint manufacturers and their trade association. The plaintiffs seek indemnity and restitution for costs incurred in abating lead paint hazards in their buildings. The court reverses lower court orders that had dismissed these indemnity and restitution claims, clarifying that such causes of action are independent of underlying time-barred tort claims and accrue when loss is suffered by the party seeking indemnity. The opinion emphasizes that these equitable remedies aim to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure that the party primarily responsible for the hazard bears the financial burden. Additionally, the court addresses jurisdictional challenges against newly added defendants, ruling that further discovery is warranted.

Lead Paint LitigationIndemnity ClaimsRestitution ClaimsStatute of LimitationsProducts LiabilityFraud ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentPublic Health SafetyEnvironmental HazardsSuccessor Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2009

Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund v. Credit-Based Asset Servicing & Securitization, LLC

This opinion by District Judge Jed S. Rakoff addresses the appointment of a lead plaintiff in consolidated securities class actions against Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The two primary contenders were the Public Employees’ Retirement System of Mississippi (MissPERS) and the Iron Workers Local No. 25 Pension Fund. The Court scrutinized an arrangement between the Iron Workers Fund and its counsel, Coughlin Stoia, involving free monitoring services, which raised concerns about lawyer-driven litigation. While MissPERS also used monitoring firms, its internal oversight and reliance on multiple firms mitigated similar concerns. Consequently, the Court granted MissPERS’ motion to be lead plaintiff, appointing Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossmann LLP as lead counsel, and denied the Iron Workers Fund's motion.

Securities Class ActionLead Plaintiff AppointmentPSLRALawyer-Driven LitigationConflict of InterestInstitutional InvestorsSubprime MortgagesFiduciary DutyClass Action ReformMonitoring Agreements
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00702
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

A.L. v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Plaintiff Helena C., on behalf of her infant child A.L., appealed the Supreme Court's decision granting summary judgment to the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) in a negligence case concerning lead poisoning. A.L., who resided in a NYCHA apartment since birth in 1999, was diagnosed with elevated blood lead levels in 2002-2003. Plaintiff testified about chipped and peeling paint in the apartment and NYCHA's own records indicated paint issues. The Appellate Division found that the Supreme Court erred by concluding that NYCHA demonstrated no hazardous condition existed and that plaintiff failed to raise an issue of fact for trial. The court also clarified the interpretation of "erected" under Local Law 1 and held that NYCHA failed to meet its burden for summary judgment, citing sufficient circumstantial evidence, including A.L.'s elevated blood lead levels and expert testimony, to create a triable issue of fact regarding a hazardous lead-based paint condition in the apartment.

Lead poisoningTenant negligenceSummary judgmentHazardous conditionLocal Law 1New York City Housing AuthorityAppellate reviewCircumstantial evidenceBlood lead levelsInfant plaintiff
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re SLM Corp. Securities Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses the appointment of a lead plaintiff in a securities class action against SLM Corporation. Initially, Westchester Capital Management, Inc. was appointed, but its Article III standing was questioned following a Second Circuit ruling in W.R. Huff Asset Mgmt. v. Deloitte & Touche LLP, which clarified that investment advisors without a valid assignment of claims lack standing. The court denied Westchester Capital's subsequent motion to approve a post-appointment assignment, reasoning it would not cure the initial lack of standing and presented unique legal issues for the class. Consequently, the court considered other movants for lead plaintiff, ultimately appointing SLM Venture, a joint venture with the largest financial interest, finding it satisfied the typicality and adequacy requirements under the PSLRA and Rule 23. Girard Gibbs & De Bartolomeo, LLP was approved as lead counsel for SLM Venture.

Securities Class ActionLead PlaintiffArticle III StandingInvestment AdvisorAssignment of ClaimsPSLRARule 23Typicality RequirementAdequacy RequirementSecond Circuit Law
References
18
Case No. 530398
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2021

Matter of Usewicz v. Nozbestos Constr. Corp.

This case concerns Zdzislaw Usewicz, who had established workers' compensation claims, including one for a World Trade Center injury and another for an occupational disease due to lead exposure. While receiving benefits for the WTC claim, his request for lost wage benefits under the occupational disease claim was denied because his cessation of employment was found unrelated to lead exposure. After attempting to re-enter the labor market, he again sought these benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board denied his claim, finding he failed to demonstrate a causal link between his lead exposure and an adverse effect on his earning capacity or ability to find work, especially given other disabling conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationLead ExposureOccupational DiseaseLost WagesReattachment to Labor MarketPermanent Partial DisabilityWorld Trade Center ClaimsCausal ConnectionEarning CapacityAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Eddy v. Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority

Two employees of the Regional Transit Service sustained injuries in July 1994 while playing on an employer-sponsored softball team. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that these injuries were causally related to their employment, leading the employer to appeal the decisions. The court evaluated whether the employer "sponsored" the team through overt encouragement and control, as stipulated by Workers' Compensation Law § 10 (1). Evidence presented, including employer-funded uniforms with logos, promotional materials displayed at the workplace, and significant managerial control over the Sunshine Fund which financed the team, supported the finding of sufficient employer sponsorship. Consequently, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the injuries arose out of and in the course of employment and entitled the claimants to workers' compensation benefits.

Workers' CompensationEmployment InjuriesOff-duty Athletic EventEmployer SponsorshipEmployee MoraleSoftball TeamCausally Related DisabilitiesAppellate ReviewWorkers’ Compensation BoardScope of Employment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2005

Hare v. Champion International

The claimant, a former laborer and millwright, appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision ruling he failed to demonstrate attachment to the labor market, despite sustaining multiple work-related injuries, including head, neck, and back trauma. His employment ended in 1999 due to a mill sale, with prior findings attributing his unemployment to economic conditions. Following further hearings and medical examinations, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge determined he had a moderate, permanent partial disability not prohibiting employment, and lacked labor market attachment. The Board affirmed this determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, rejecting the claimant's arguments for total disability and upholding the finding that he had not sought work since December 2000, thus failing to demonstrate the requisite attachment to the labor market.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentMedical EvidenceAppellate ReviewEconomic ConditionsUnemploymentDisability BenefitsJudicial AffirmationConflicting Medical Evidence
References
9
Case No. 08 Civ. 854
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ambac Financial Group, Inc.

This case involves a consolidated shareholder derivative action against Ambac Financial Group, Inc.'s officers and directors. The Wayne County Employees’ Retirement System and The Trustees of the Police and Fire Retirement System of the City of Detroit (Proposed Intervenors) moved to intervene as co-lead plaintiffs for 'Caremark' claims and to have their attorneys appointed as co-lead counsel. The existing plaintiffs, who brought the original derivative actions, opposed the motion. The court denied the Proposed Intervenors' motion for intervention, both as of right and permissively, finding that the existing plaintiffs adequately represented the corporation's interests and that the Proposed Intervenors had not met their burden to demonstrate otherwise.

Shareholder Derivative ActionIntervention MotionCo-lead PlaintiffsCo-lead CounselFiduciary DutyCorporate OversightCaremark ClaimsSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(a)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 24(b)
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 4,710 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