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. 2024 NYSlipOp 01444 [225 AD3d 1189]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2024

Jesmain v. Time Cap Dev. Corp.

Plaintiff Connor B. Jesmain was injured at a construction site on property owned by 980 James Street, LLC, while moving a stack of drywall panels that fell on his ankle. He commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Time Cap Development Corp. and 980 James Street, LLC (980 James defendants), and Interior Builders Framing and Drywall LLC. The 980 James defendants also sought contractual indemnification against third-party defendant Syracuse Energy Systems, Inc. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, reinstating Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) causes of action due to issues of fact regarding safe storage and a dangerous material pile. The court also granted summary judgment dismissing Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims against 980 James, denied contractual indemnification for 980 James defendants against Syracuse Energy, and granted summary judgment dismissing 980 James defendants' cross-claim for contractual indemnification against Interior Builders. The decision affirmed the denial of Interior Builders' motion to dismiss the amended complaint and other cross-claims.

Construction Site InjuryDrywall AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox News Network, L.L.C. v. Time Warner Inc.

This case arises from a dispute between Time Warner and Fox concerning Time Warner's decision not to carry Fox News on its New York City cable channels. Fox initially sued Time Warner, prompting Time Warner to file counterclaims alleging that Fox conspired with New York City officials to unlawfully coerce Time Warner into carrying Fox News. Time Warner's counterclaims assert violations of its First Amendment and Due Process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and tortious interference with contractual relations. Fox moved to dismiss these counterclaims, arguing that its actions were protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which generally shields lobbying activities. The court denied Fox's motion, concluding that Time Warner had adequately alleged a conspiracy and that the Noerr-Pennington doctrine might not apply if Fox's conduct was found to be illegal or corrupt, thus allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

First Amendment RightsDue ProcessSection 1983Noerr-Pennington DoctrineCable ActAntitrustLobbyingFreedom of SpeechConspiracyMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2003

Rypkema v. Time Manufacturing Co.

Rose Rypkema and Ted Rypkema sued Time Manufacturing Company for product liability after Rose Rypkema suffered injuries using a "Versalift" boom lift, alleging design defect and breach of warranty. Time moved for summary judgment, seeking to exclude the Rypkemas' expert, Nicholas Bellizzi, whose testimony lacked scientific methodology and testing for proposed alternative designs. District Judge Sweet, applying Daubert and Kumho Tire standards, excluded Bellizzi's testimony. Consequently, with no expert evidence to support the product liability claim, the court granted Time's motion to dismiss the complaint and Savvy Systems, Ltd.'s cross-motion to dismiss the third-party complaint, concluding there was insufficient evidence for product liability.

Product LiabilityExpert TestimonyDaubert StandardKumho Tire StandardSummary JudgmentDesign DefectFailure to WarnEngineering MethodologyAerial LiftLatch Failure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Time Moving & Storage

Plaintiff Leonor Dátil Perez, acting pro se, sued Time Moving & Storage for $3.9 million in property damage to her newspaper collection, allegedly due to the defendant's negligence. A key dispute arose regarding the presence of Joseph Candella, a principal of Time Moving, during the deposition of the defendant's employees. The motion court initially barred Candella from the depositions, citing plaintiff's claims of intimidation. However, the Appellate Division reversed this order, ruling that the plaintiff's assertions did not meet the 'unusual circumstances' standard required to exclude a party from a deposition under CPLR 3103(a). The court emphasized a party's right to be present per CPLR 3113(c) and Candella's role in assisting counsel and trial strategy.

DepositionsWitness ExclusionCorporate RepresentationPro Se LitigantCivil ProcedureAppellate ReviewCPLR 3113CPLR 3103IntimidationDiscovery Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horn v. New York Times

The New York Court of Appeals addresses whether the narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine, established in Wieder v Skala, applies to a physician employed by a nonmedical entity like the New York Times. Dr. Sheila E. Horn, formerly Associate Medical Director, alleged wrongful termination for refusing to disclose confidential employee medical records without consent and for not misinforming employees about workers' compensation eligibility, citing professional ethical standards. While lower courts extended the Wieder exception, which applied to lawyers in a common professional enterprise, the Court of Appeals reversed. The court concluded that Horn's role involved corporate management responsibilities related to workers' compensation and did not constitute the 'very core' of her employment in the same way as a lawyer's professional services to a law firm's clients. Therefore, the ethical rules cited did not impose a mutual obligation between Horn and the Times to practice law in compliance with specific professional codes, as required for the Wieder exception.

At-will employmentBreach of contractPhysician-patient privilegeProfessional ethicsCorporate employmentRetaliatory dischargeWieder v Skala exceptionEmployment lawConfidentialityMedical director
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alleyne v. Time Moving & Storage Inc.

Plaintiffs Marcel Alleyne and Earl Legrande filed a class action lawsuit against Time Moving & Storage, Inc. and The Time Record Storage Company, LLC, alleging failure to pay overtime wages in violation of federal FLSA and New York Labor Law. Defendants invoked the motor carrier exemption as a defense. The parties reached a class settlement agreement for the state law claims, which was provisionally certified. Following objections from some class members regarding the fairness of the settlement, class certification, and attorney's fees, the Court, presided over by Judge Vitaliano, granted final class certification and approved the settlement. The Court found the settlement fair and reasonable given the risks of litigation, denied the objectors' motion to intervene, and approved attorney's fees of $60,000.

Class ActionOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawMotor Carrier ExemptionWage and Hour ClaimsClass SettlementSettlement ApprovalAttorney's FeesRule 23 Certification
References
41
Case No. ADJ6729105
Regular
Sep 16, 2009

, ## Applicant, vs. , ## Defendant(s).

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a ruling that utilization review for the applicant's shoulder surgery was timely. The applicant argued she did not receive the denial letter within the required timeframe, but the Board found that the denial was properly sent to the treating physician and carbon-copied to the applicant within the statutory period. The Board clarified that WCAB Rule 10505(d) regarding official address records did not apply at the time of the denial because no claim application was yet filed. Therefore, the carrier's obligation was to communicate the denial in writing within the specified time, which they did.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCadbury SchweppesGallagher Bassett ServicesUtilization ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationApplication for Adjudication of ClaimWCAB Rule 10505(d)Labor Code Section 4610ArthroscopyBiceps Tenodesis
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 7,328 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