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. ADJ3359067 (SJO 0265205)
Regular
May 13, 2016

JOE LACORTE vs. U-SAVE ROCKERY, FARMERS INSURANCE, SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration in this case. This decision was made in response to a petition filed by the defendant, U-Save Rockery and Farmers Insurance. The WCAB needs further time to thoroughly review the factual and legal issues presented to ensure a just and reasoned decision. All future filings related to the petition must be submitted directly to the WCAB Commissioners in San Francisco and not to any district office or via e-filing.

LacorteU-Save RockeryFarmers InsuranceSubsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardOpinion and OrderStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal Issues
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00066 [179 AD3d 427]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 07, 2020

Matter of Katherine U. (Jose U.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order finding Jose U. sexually abused his child, Katherine U., and dismissed the appeal from the fact-finding order. The court upheld the use of closed-circuit television for the child's testimony, balancing the father's due process rights with the child's emotional well-being, as contemporaneous cross-examination by counsel was permitted. An affidavit from the child's social worker sufficiently established that in-court testimony would cause emotional harm. Furthermore, Jose U.'s prior criminal convictions for predatory sexual assault, rape, incest, and sexual abuse, involving the child, collaterally estopped him from contesting the abuse allegations in the family court petition.

Child abuseSexual abuseFamily LawAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessChild TestimonyClosed-circuit televisionCollateral EstoppelCriminal ConvictionEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05774
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

Matter of Jessica U. (Stephanie U.)

The Chemung County Department of Social Services initiated proceedings to terminate Stephanie U.'s parental rights, alleging permanent neglect of her six children. Following a lengthy fact-finding hearing, the Family Court found five children permanently neglected, returned the oldest to the mother's care, ordered a one-year suspended judgment for two, and terminated parental rights for the three youngest children. Stephanie U. appealed this decision, challenging both the finding of permanent neglect and the termination of parental rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, concluding that the Department had made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and that the mother had failed to adequately plan for her children's future. The court also determined that the termination of parental rights for the three youngest children was in their best interests, noting their stability in preadoptive homes.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsChild CustodyFamily LawAppellate ReviewBest Interests of ChildrenFoster CareSuspended JudgmentSocial Services
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1999

Baby U. v. Teresea U.

This case involves an appeal concerning the adoption of 'Baby U.' Petitioners sought to adopt, but respondents (the birth parents, Teresea U. and Paul E.) subsequently revoked their extrajudicial consents. Respondents alleged the consents were invalid due to lack of adequate representation and a misunderstanding of their revocability. The Family Court initially found the consents invalid and ordered petitioners to pay respondents' legal expenses. On appeal, the higher court reversed the findings regarding the invalidity of the consents, determining there was competent representation and no fraud, coercion, or duress. It also reversed the orders requiring petitioners to bear respondents' litigation costs. While affirming certain discovery and visitation orders, the matter was ultimately remanded for a best interests hearing for Baby U. before a different Family Court Judge, with an emphasis on the child's right to a Law Guardian.

Adoption LawParental ConsentChild WelfareAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesBest Interests of ChildFamily CourtLegal EthicsRevocation of ConsentInterstate Adoption
References
3
Case No. In re U.S. Air Duct Corporation
Regular Panel Decision

Mazur v. U. S. Air Duct Corp. (In Re U. S. Air Duct Corp.)

The case involves the Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 58 (the Association) seeking to recover fringe benefits and wage supplement contributions from U.S. Air Duct Corporation (the Debtor) and its president, Franklin E. Bean (the Non-Debtor). The Association initiated an action in New York Supreme Court, which was subsequently stayed when the Debtor filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The Non-Debtor removed the state-court proceeding to the Bankruptcy Court, prompting the Association to move for its remand. The Bankruptcy Court denied the Association's motion, asserting jurisdiction over the claim against the Non-Debtor based on its relation to the Title 11 case and the joint and several liability under New York Labor Law Section 198-c. The court also affirmed the permissibility of removal by "any party" under 28 U.S.C. 1478(a).

BankruptcyChapter 7RemovalRemandJurisdictionLabor LawFringe BenefitsWage SupplementsCorporate Officer LiabilityJoint and Several Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Royal Park Investments SA/NV v. U.S. Bank National Ass'n

Royal Park Investments SA/NV sued U.S. Bank National Association regarding residential mortgage-backed securities (RMBS). U.S. Bank moved to dismiss the action or disqualify Royal Park as class representative due to Royal Park's failure to produce documents from its assignors. The court, presided over by U.S. Magistrate Judge James C. Francis IV, found Royal Park's non-compliance willful but denied U.S. Bank's motion for sanctions and disqualification. The court reasoned that U.S. Bank had not yet demonstrated sufficient prejudice to warrant such severe sanctions, indicating that dismissal would be 'unnecessarily draconian'. The motion was denied without prejudice, allowing U.S. Bank to renew its application if prejudice could be shown.

Discovery SanctionsWillfulnessPrejudiceClass ActionRMBS LitigationTrust Indenture ActBreach of ContractBreach of TrustAssignor DocumentsStanding
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kaleb U.

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that revoked a suspended judgment and terminated the parental rights of David U. (father) and Cynthia V. (mother) concerning their son, Kaleb U., who has multiple disabilities. Following an earlier neglect adjudication, respondents agreed to a suspended judgment with several conditions. Petitioner later sought to revoke this judgment due to the respondents' noncompliance with conditions such as attending support groups, submitting to drug tests, attending visitations, and managing the father's alcohol issues. The Family Court found substantial noncompliance and terminated parental rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, deferring to the Family Court's findings and noting the parents' excuses for noncompliance, concluding that termination was in the child's best interest for adoption.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectSuspended Judgment RevocationChild WelfareFamily Court AppealNoncomplianceFoster CareSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewBroome County
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00383
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2020

U-Trend N.Y. Inv. L.P. v. US Suite LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning a judgment awarding mortgage damages to U-Trend New York Investment L.P. against US Suite LLC and Aura Investments Ltd. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's judgment by reducing the principal amount of mortgage damages awarded to U-Trend, stating that interest should be calculated at 13.5% instead of 20%. The court affirmed the judgment in other respects, including the limitation of Aura's liability for looting damages and the denial of sale damages and attorneys' fees. An appeal from a separate order denying Aura's motion to correct or vacate the judgment was dismissed as academic. The court addressed various arguments from Aura regarding liability, causation, and damages calculations, ultimately upholding liability for breach of contract but adjusting the damages amount based on the proper interest rate.

Mortgage DamagesBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyLooting DamagesInterest Rate CalculationAppellate ReviewBusiness Judgment RuleJudicial AdmissionsDerivative ClaimsAttorneys' Fees
References
20
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06673 [143 AD3d 749]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2016

Beeker v. Islip U-Slip, LLC

The plaintiff, Jeffrey Beeker, allegedly sustained personal injuries from a fall on an exterior staircase at a commercial warehouse owned by Islip U-Slip, LLC. At the time, the plaintiff was employed by nonparty Raymours Furniture Company, Inc., and Raymour & Flanigan Properties, LLC, was under contract to purchase the warehouse. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Islip U-Slip was an out-of-possession landlord and RFP was either a joint venture with or alter ego of the plaintiff's employer, thereby invoking Workers' Compensation exclusivity. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie either the joint venture/alter ego relationship or that Islip U-Slip lacked a contractual duty to maintain the staircase.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityOut-of-Possession LandlordPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewDuty to MaintainAlter EgoJoint VentureStaircase Fall
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U. S. Pillow Corp. v. McLeod

The U. S. Pillow Corporation (plaintiff) initiated legal action to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election involving its employees, as petitioned by Local 140. Although the election proceeded, the ballots were impounded. The court considered three motions: Local 140's request for intervention, U. S. Pillow's plea for an injunction to continue ballot impoundment, and the Regional Director's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted Local 140's intervention. The core of U. S. Pillow's argument centered on alleged violations of its constitutional rights and administrative due process by the NLRB's decision to permit a single-employer unit election despite existing multi-employer agreements. The court, however, deemed the plaintiff's constitutional claims to be "transparently frivolous" and found no merit in any of its contentions. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's request for an injunction pendente lite was denied.

Labor RelationsNLRBRepresentation ElectionJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingMulti-employer UnitConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFirst Amendment
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 1,381 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