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. ADJ3605789 (GOL 0101314), ADJ2387995 (GOL 0101316), ADJ460036 (GOL 0101315)
Regular
Jul 26, 2012

JORGE VIVANCO vs. NEVERLAND VALLEY RANCH, ESTATE OF MICHAEL JACKSON, MJJ PRODUCTIONS, TRAVELERS INDEMNITY, UNITED STAFFING ASSOCIATES, AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, MONARCH CONSULTING dba PES PAYROLL, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed the original findings regarding employment for both United Staffing Associates and Monarch Consulting. The Board found that United Staffing Associates was never the applicant's employer, rescinding findings that they were the employer on October 8, 2007, and for a cumulative trauma period. Regarding Monarch Consulting, the Board found they were not the employer on October 2, 2006, but were the general employer from March 2006 through August 30, 2007, with specific exclusions, reversing the prior ruling on the specific injury date. The case was returned for further proceedings consistent with these revised findings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardJorge VivancoNeverland Valley RanchEstate of Michael JacksonMJJ ProductionsTravelers IndemnityUnited Staffing AssociatesAmerican Home Assurance CompanyMonarch ConsultingPES Payroll
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L & L Associates Holding Corp. v. Charity United Baptist Church

Petitioner L & L Associates Holding Corp. initiated a nonpayment eviction proceeding against Charity United Baptist Church for alleged rent arrears. The court, presided over by Judge Michael A. Ciaffa, examined the sufficiency of service of process. The petitioner attempted service by affixing the petition to the church door and mailing it to the church's address. The court ruled that this method was legally insufficient, stating that an unincorporated church, treated as an unincorporated association under New York law, must be sued by naming and serving a representative natural person, such as its president or treasurer, to establish jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed without prejudice due to improper service and a separate jurisdictional defect concerning the proof of rent demand.

EvictionNonpaymentUnincorporated AssociationService of ProcessReligious Corporations LawGeneral Associations LawRPAPL 735Jurisdictional DefectActual NoticeDue Process
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lahendro v. New York State United Teachers Ass'n

Plaintiff Michael F. Lahendro, a guidance counselor, sued the New York State United Teachers Association (NYSUT) and Brushton-Moira Teachers Association for breach of the duty of fair representation and negligence after NYSUT failed to timely file a demand for a hearing against his employment termination. This oversight led Lahendro to accept a settlement including retirement. Defendants moved to dismiss the lawsuit, which the Supreme Court denied, leading to this appeal. The appellate court reversed, dismissing the breach of fair representation claim based on the 'Martin v Curran' rule, which requires proving all individual union members authorized or ratified the conduct for suits against unincorporated associations, which plaintiffs could not do. Additionally, the negligence claim was dismissed as actions against unions for duties under collective bargaining agreements must be for breach of fair representation.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationNegligenceUnincorporated AssociationMartin v Curran RuleEducation LawCPLRLate FilingSettlement AgreementEmployment TerminationGuidance Counselor
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lynch v. United States Automobile Ass'n

Plaintiff William Lynch initiated an action against the United States Automobile Association (USAA) for unpaid overtime wages, citing violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law. Lynch sought to amend his complaint to include other similarly situated employees who had opted into the collective action and to introduce California state-law claims for nine California-based plaintiffs. USAA opposed the amendment, primarily arguing that the court should decline supplemental jurisdiction over the California claims due to their purported novelty, complexity, potential to predominate over federal claims, or risk of jury confusion. Magistrate Judge Kevin Nathaniel Fox evaluated USAA's objections under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c) and determined that the California state-law claims were not novel or complex, would not substantially predominate, and that jury confusion did not constitute an exceptional circumstance compelling a denial of jurisdiction. Consequently, the court granted Lynch's motion for leave to amend the complaint.

FLSAOvertime WagesFair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawCalifornia Labor LawRule 15(a)Supplemental JurisdictionMotion to Amend ComplaintCollective ActionClass Certification
References
11
Case No. CIV-88-1404C, CIV-90-481C
Regular Panel Decision

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. United Transportation Union

CSX Transportation, Inc. (CSXT) initiated the sale of a 369-mile rail line, which threatened the jobs of 226 employees. In response, the United Transportation Union and American Train Dispatchers Association (the Unions) invoked the Railway Labor Act (RLA) § 6, seeking to negotiate labor-protective provisions and preserve the status quo. The district court initially deemed the dispute 'minor' due to CSXT's plausible contractual defense, allowing the sale to proceed while the matter went to arbitration. A special adjustment board subsequently found CSXT's contractual defense unavailing, concluding that existing agreements did not permit the sale without prior bargaining over employee impacts. This court affirmed the board's jurisdiction and its finding, clarifying that the Unions were indeed entitled to status quo preservation during such bargaining, distinguishing its ruling from other circuits that had broadened management prerogative in partial business sales. The case is now remanded to the board to determine the appropriate remedies for the affected union members.

Railway Labor ActLabor DisputeCollective BargainingStatus QuoLine SaleArbitrationMajor DisputeMinor DisputeManagement PrerogativeEmployee Protection
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McPartland v. United Ass'n of Journeymen

Plaintiffs, former union members including Eugene McPartland, sued the national United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry and its locals, 313 and 638B, alleging LMRDA violations regarding membership transfer. They claimed Local 313 refused their travel cards for transfer to Michigan, despite prior assurances. The court addressed the defendants' motions to dismiss for improper venue and failure to state a claim. Motions to dismiss for improper venue were granted for the national Union and Local 313, as no alleged violations occurred in the Eastern District of New York. Local 638B's motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim was also granted, as plaintiffs received the travel cards they requested and did not demonstrate a refusal of transfer cards or any obstruction by Local 638B.

LMRDA ViolationUnion Membership TransferImproper VenueFailure to State a ClaimLabor LawLocal Union DisputeTravel CardsTransfer CardsAgency RelationshipMotions to Dismiss
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Spinal Ass'n v. Board of Elections in the City of New York

Plaintiffs United Spinal Association and Disabled in Action brought an action against the Board of Elections in the City of New York (BOE) under Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act and Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, alleging pervasive access barriers at poll sites. The Court previously denied a preliminary injunction. Both parties subsequently moved for summary judgment. The Court found no genuine dispute of material fact regarding the existence of pervasive and recurring accessibility barriers and deemed the BOE's accommodation methods insufficient. Consequently, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendants' cross-motion. The case is now referred to a Magistrate Judge for the determination of the appropriate remedy.

AccessibilityVoting RightsAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActPoll SitesSummary JudgmentDisability DiscriminationBoard of ElectionsMeaningful AccessReasonable Accommodation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vaniglia v. Northgate Homes, Northgate Properties, Inc.

Plaintiff Robert Vaniglia sustained serious injuries at a Richmond County construction site on March 30, 1977, due to a backhoe entangling with an electrical conduit. Northgate Homes, the site owner and general contractor, and third-party defendant United Associates Construction & Excavating Corp., which provided the backhoe operator, were found liable. A jury initially awarded Vaniglia $1,500,000 in damages. The appellate court affirmed the findings of liability but deemed the damages excessive. It conditionally reversed the damages award, ordering a new trial unless Vaniglia agreed to reduce the sum to $1,000,000. The judgment against United Associates was affirmed.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentNegligenceLabor Law ViolationApportionment of FaultDamages AssessmentExcessive VerdictConditional ReversalNew Trial on DamagesThird-Party Liability
References
4
Case No. 30 AD3d 876
Regular Panel Decision

Sandra M. v. St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center

The plaintiffs, Sandra M. and her husband, appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to St. Luke's Roosevelt Hospital Center, dismissing their complaint. Sandra M. was allegedly sexually assaulted by a nursing assistant, Ricardo Cortez, supplied by United Staffing System, Inc., while on suicide watch at the Hospital. The plaintiffs sued the Hospital, United, and Cortez, alleging the Hospital was negligent in its suicide watch policies and its failure to independently evaluate staff provided by United. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order and affirmed the judgment dismissing the complaint against the Hospital. The court found the Hospital was not vicariously liable for Cortez's personal tortious acts and had no duty to independently screen employees supplied by United, as it had no prior knowledge of Cortez's propensity for misconduct.

Personal InjurySexual AssaultNegligenceHospital LiabilityVicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuicide Watch
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. 175 Inwood Associates LLP.

The United States initiated a civil action under CERCLA against 175 Inwood Associates, 175 Roger Corporation, and individuals Abraham Woldiger, Abraham Taub, and Peter Hoffman to recover EPA costs for hazardous substance cleanup at the Inwood Site. The government also sought civil damages for non-compliance with EPA administrative orders. The court found Woldiger, Taub, Hoffman, and 175 Inwood Associates liable as "owners" under CERCLA, rejecting their various affirmative defenses including the third-party defense. However, 175 Roger Corporation was deemed not liable due to not owning the site during the hazardous material disposal. The case was referred to a Magistrate Judge to determine the specific amounts of damages, interest, fees, costs, and civil penalties.

CERCLAEnvironmental LiabilityHazardous Waste CleanupProperty Owner LiabilityPartnership LiabilityCorporate LiabilityFederal Civil ActionEPA EnforcementStrict LiabilityAffirmative Defenses
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 3,705 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