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

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kleehammer v. Monroe County

This case involves an employment sex discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Plaintiff Kleehammer against Monroe County and Sheriff O'Flynn. Kleehammer alleges hostile work environment and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The hostile environment claim stemmed from a single incident involving a female visitor and a male inmate, and subsequent lewd comments by co-workers. Kleehammer also claimed retaliation for complaining about the hostile environment and for alleged denial of "Z time" leave. The Court granted in part and denied in part the defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, dismissing the hostile environment and Equal Protection/Fourth Amendment claims due to insufficient pleading and lack of employer liability for co-worker conduct, but allowed the retaliation claims (Third and Fourth causes of action) to proceed. The Court cautioned Plaintiff's counsel regarding Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 for good faith pleading.

Employment DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliation ClaimMotion to DismissJudgment on the PleadingsTitle VII Civil Rights ActNew York Human Rights LawSection 1983 ClaimPleading StandardsBell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. St. Barnabas Nursing Home

Plaintiff Felicia Pickett Johnson, pro se, brought an action against her former employer, St. Barnabas Nursing Home, and co-worker, Ronald Granger, under Title VII, the ADA, and New York Human Rights Laws. Claims against Granger were dismissed without prejudice. St. Barnabas moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting that Johnson's federal claims were time-barred because she failed to file within 90 days of receiving her EEOC right-to-sue letter. The court determined that Johnson's filing on February 7, 2008, was beyond the 90-day period, whether calculated from the presumptive receipt date of November 3, 2007, or her claimed receipt date of November 14, 2007 (or even November 8, 2008, based on a fax confirmation). Finding no extraordinary circumstances to warrant equitable tolling, the court dismissed the federal claims as time-barred and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims. Consequently, St. Barnabas's motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Title VIIADAEmployment DiscriminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingRight-to-Sue LetterJudgment on the PleadingsSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights ActAmericans with Disabilities Act
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rolon v. Henneman

Plaintiff Dennis Rolon, a police officer, sued Sergeant Ari Moskowitz under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging Fourteenth Amendment due process violations for false disciplinary charges and testimony that led to his suspension. The court considered Moskowitz's motion for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that Rolon failed to state a claim for false testimony because Moskowitz's testimony was struck from the record and disbelieved. Additionally, Rolon's claims for malicious prosecution and fabrication of evidence failed because his Fourth Amendment rights were not implicated, as he faced administrative rather than criminal charges, and suffered no deprivation of liberty, only property loss. Consequently, Moskowitz’s motion for judgment on the pleadings was granted.

Due processSection 1983False disciplinary chargesAbsolute immunityQualified immunityMalicious prosecutionFabrication of evidenceFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentAdministrative proceedings
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Boyle v. Texasgulf Aviation, Inc.

This opinion by District Judge Goettel addresses motions within the long-standing "Texasgulf cases," stemming from a 1981 corporate aircraft crash, primarily focusing on a workers' compensation lien. Plaintiff Boyle moved to extinguish or reduce a lien held by Zurich-American Insurance Companies, while Texasgulf cross-moved to amend pleadings to join as a plaintiff to apportion damages under Connecticut law. The court determined that Connecticut law governs the workers' compensation lien issues for the Connecticut residents involved, denying the plaintiffs' request for New York law. However, Texasgulf's motion to amend its pleadings was denied due to undue and unjustified delay of over four years since a key jury finding establishing its corporate independence from TGA, and after all appeals and settlements had concluded. The court emphasized that allowing such a late amendment would be contrary to judicial efficiency and the finality of judgments, despite the ambiguity of Connecticut's statutory notice requirements.

Workers' Compensation LienChoice of LawConnecticut LawNew York LawRule 15 AmendmentUndue DelayPrejudiceCorporate VeilWrongful Death StatuteAircraft Crash Litigation
References
24
Case No. ADJ9669522
Regular
Jul 24, 2017

NIOCHE ADAMS vs. MURCHINSON & CUMMING, LLP, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns a defendant's attempt to bar a Labor Code section 132a claim due to a statute of limitations argument. The defendant argued the claim was time-barred because the initial petition was unverified and the verified petition was filed late. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) treated the defendant's petition as one for reconsideration and denied it. The WCAB held that a failure to verify a pleading is a curable defect and an amendment to remedy this defect relates back, even if filed after the statute of limitations has run.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code section 132astatute of limitationsverified petitionfiling defectthreshold issuequasi-civilquasi-criminalamendment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sacay v. Research Foundation of the City University of New York

Plaintiff Melanie Sacay brought an action against her employers and supervisors, including the Research Foundation of the City University of New York, alleging retaliation under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Sacay claimed she was effectively terminated for supporting her mother's discrimination claims against the same defendants. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of retaliation because her alleged protected activity, a memorandum supporting her mother, occurred after the adverse employment action (her transfer). However, the plaintiff was granted leave to amend her complaint to potentially show earlier protected activity, with the exception of federal claims against individual defendants Morris and Pérsico.

RetaliationAmerican with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawSection 1983Judgment on the PleadingsAdverse Employment ActionCausal LinkProtected Activity
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers v. Secretary of Department of Treasury

The plaintiff, George Myers, an IRS employee, filed several EEO claims for age discrimination, harassment, and retaliation. After being reassignment, he filed a federal complaint alleging discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Executive Law. The defendant, Secretary of the Department of the Treasury, moved for judgment on the pleadings due to Myers's failure to properly serve the summons and complaint as required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i) and 4(m). While acknowledging attorney neglect, the Court, exercising its discretion and considering the expiration of the statute of limitations and the government's prior notice of the claims, denied the motion to dismiss and granted the plaintiff an additional 30 days to effect proper service.

Age DiscriminationHarassmentRetaliationService of ProcessFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(i)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 4(m)Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsAttorney NeglectJudicial Discretion
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franklin v. Apfel

Roger R. Franklin appealed the denial of social security disability benefits by Commissioner Kenneth S. Apfel. Franklin claimed disability since January 1993 due to back problems, depression, anxiety, and stomach ulcers. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially denied benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appeals Council. District Judge Curtin reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The court found that the ALJ erred by downplaying non-exertional impairments and by relying on unreliable vocational expert testimony regarding job availability. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was granted, the defendant's denied, and the case was remanded for further administrative proceedings consistent with the decision.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActALJ DecisionRemandResidual Functional CapacityNon-Exertional ImpairmentsVocational ExpertSubstantial EvidenceMedical-Vocational GuidelinesMental Impairment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Criminal Bar Ass'n v. Newton

Plaintiffs, including Coastal Oil New York, Inc. and two criminal defense bar associations, brought an action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against three New York State Justices, alleging that the New York County District Attorney illicitly influenced the assignment of judges to "high-profile" criminal cases, thereby violating their due process rights. The alleged scheme involved the D.A. selecting "pro-prosecution" judges for initial ex parte orders, then recommending them for grand jury duties and subsequent trials. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing mootness and lack of standing. The District Court granted the defendants' motion, ruling that Coastal Oil's claim was moot because the challenged judge had recused himself, and the remaining bar associations and individual plaintiffs lacked standing as they had not suffered a concrete injury. Consequently, the amended complaint was dismissed.

Due ProcessJudicial AssignmentCriminal ProcedureStandingMootnessFederal Question Jurisdiction42 U.S.C. Section 1983District AttorneyJudicial Bias AllegationsRecusal
References
34
Showing 1-10 of 975 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