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. 26 NY3d 107 (2016)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

S.B. v. A.C.C.

This case addresses the definition of "parent" under Domestic Relations Law § 70 (a) for purposes of custody and visitation for unmarried couples. The New York Court of Appeals overrules its 1991 decision in Matter of Alison D. v Virginia M., which had limited parental standing to biological or adoptive parents. The Court now holds that a non-biological, non-adoptive partner has standing if they can show by clear and convincing evidence that the parties agreed to conceive and raise a child together. In Matter of Brooke S.B. v Elizabeth A.C.C., the Appellate Division's order is reversed and the matter remitted for further proceedings under this new standard. In Matter of Estrellita A. v Jennifer L.D., the Appellate Division's order is affirmed, upholding standing based on judicial estoppel. This decision aims to address the unworkability of the Alison D. rule in light of evolving familial relationships, particularly for same-sex couples, and to protect the best interests of children.

Parental RightsCustodyVisitationSame-Sex CouplesNontraditional FamiliesEquitable EstoppelJudicial EstoppelPre-Conception AgreementDomestic Relations LawOverruling Precedent
References
28
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00482 [179 AD3d 546]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2020

Matter of Maxine B. v. Richard C.

This case concerns an appeal by Richard C. against an order of protection issued in favor of his mother, Maxine B., by the Family Court of Bronx County. The order was based on a finding that Richard C. committed menacing in the third degree. Richard C. argued that Maxine B. had stated she did not want the order, but the Appellate Division noted that other evidence, including sworn testimony from a social worker and counsel's representations made outside Richard C.'s presence, indicated Maxine B.'s need for protection. The court affirmed the finding that Richard C. intentionally placed Maxine B. in fear of physical injury, resulting in a black eye, and upheld the Family Court's credibility assessments. Other arguments regarding evidence admission, right to counsel, and the social worker's authority were dismissed as unpreserved or without specific prejudice. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the order of protection.

Order of ProtectionMenacing Third DegreeFamily Court ActAppellate DivisionCredibility AssessmentEvidence AdmissibilityRight to CounselFamily OffenseDomestic ViolenceAffirmation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.B.S., Inc. v. International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industry

The plaintiff, C. B. S., Inc., filed a motion for a temporary injunction to prevent arbitration demanded by Local 644, arguing that no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and that the terminations at issue were non-arbitrable layoffs. The defendant, Local 644, cross-moved to compel arbitration concerning the "arbitrary and capricious discharges" of three union members. The court found that Local 644 was indeed a signatory to and covered by the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that whether the terminations constituted layoffs or arbitrary discharges was a matter to be decided by an arbitrator, as the contract did not unambiguously exclude layoffs from the arbitration clause. Consequently, the court denied CBS's motion for a stay of arbitration and granted Local 644's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationLayoffsDischargesCollective Bargaining AgreementUnionEmployerTemporary InjunctionMotion to Compel ArbitrationArbitrabilityContract Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

B. C. Manufacturing Co. v. Reiff

The case concerns an injunction sought by B. C. Manufacturing Co. Inc., a nonunion dress contractor, against Local 143 of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union and its manager, Louis Reiff, to stop picketing of its Mount Vernon, N.Y., factory. The picketing began after a general strike in March 1958, initially seeking a union agreement and later urging employees to join the union. The court found evidence of abusive and disorderly conduct during the picketing, including massing, blocking ingress/egress, pushing, and verbal abuse. However, the court denied a general injunction against all peaceful picketing, ruling it lacked jurisdiction due to federal preemption under the Taft-Hartley Act, as the plaintiff's interstate commerce activities fall under NLRB's exclusive purview. Instead, a limited injunction was granted, restricting the number of pickets, prohibiting interference with employees, and forbidding abusive language.

Labor DisputePicketingInjunctionTaft-Hartley ActNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Interstate CommerceUnfair Labor PracticeUnionizationStranger PicketingCoercion
References
27
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 07297
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2021

Teodoro v. C.W. Brown, Inc.

The plaintiff, Silvino Teodoro, an employee of Westchester County Electric, Inc., suffered an electric shock in August 2013 while replacing a light ballast. He brought an action against C.W. Brown, Inc., Westpark I, LLC, Nine West Group, Inc., and PepsiCo, Inc., alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted summary judgment to all defendants and denied the plaintiff's motions. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decisions, ruling that the plaintiff's work constituted routine maintenance, which is not covered by Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6). Furthermore, the court found that the defendants did not exercise supervision or control over the plaintiff's work, thus precluding liability under Labor Law § 200.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentRoutine MaintenanceSpoliation of EvidencePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyElectric ShockGeneral ContractorSubcontractor Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2015

Boice v. M+W U.S., Inc.

This case concerns a wage-and-hour action filed by Vincent E. Boice against M+W U.S., Inc., Total Facility Solutions, Inc., and M+W Zander N.Y. Architects, P.C. under the Fair Labor Standards Act. Plaintiff moved to conditionally certify a collective action and compel discovery. Magistrate Judge Hummel recommended denying conditional certification without prejudice but granting limited pre-certification discovery for employee contact information. District Judge Glenn T. Suddaby accepted and adopted this Report-Recommendation, denying the defendants' motion to strike the declaration and the plaintiff's motion for conditional certification while granting in part the motion to compel discovery. The court also denied other relief sought by the plaintiff and reopened the discovery period for 90 days.

FLSAWage-and-Hour ActionCollective ActionConditional CertificationDiscovery MotionOvertime CompensationJudicial ReviewEmployment LawClass Action ProcedureMagistrate Judge Recommendation
References
60
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01485 [181 AD3d 580]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 04, 2020

McIntosh v. Ronit Realty, LLC

The case involves Bobb McIntosh, an employee of A.B.C. Tank Repair & Lining, Inc., who sustained injuries at premises owned by Ronit Realty, LLC. McIntosh initiated a lawsuit against Ronit, which subsequently filed a third-party action against A.B.C. Tank seeking contribution and indemnification. A.B.C. Tank moved for summary judgment, asserting there was no written agreement for indemnification and that McIntosh's injuries did not qualify as a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The Supreme Court denied A.B.C. Tank's motion. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that A.B.C. Tank had established its prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and Ronit failed to present a triable issue of fact.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionContributionIndemnificationWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryEmployer LiabilityContractual IndemnificationBreach of ContractPersonal Injuries
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 1991

Downing v. B & B Machine Repair, Inc.

Plaintiff William Downing, a lumber yard worker, sued B & B Machine Repair, Inc. after severing his thumb while operating a table saw that lacked a safety guard. The plaintiff alleged negligence, claiming B & B failed to procure a replacement guard as requested by his employer 16 months before the incident. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied B & B's motion for summary judgment on the negligence claim, citing material issues of fact regarding the availability of replacement guards, as refuted by the plaintiff's expert. This appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding B & B's arguments lacked merit. A dissenting opinion argued for dismissal, contending B & B's contractual obligation was vague, its actions were not the proximate cause of the injury, and the employer was primarily at fault for using an unsafe saw.

Summary JudgmentNegligenceStrict Products LiabilityWorkplace InjuryTable Saw AccidentSafety GuardProximate CauseDuty of CareContractual ObligationExpert Witness
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 10, 2013

Christopher C. v. Bonnie C.

This divorce action between Christopher C. and Bonnie C. addresses equitable distribution, spousal maintenance, and counsel fees. The defendant, Bonnie C., who has a court-appointed guardian due to mental and emotional difficulties, had separated from the plaintiff in 2003 and informally divided marital assets. The court ratified this prior asset division, noting the defendant had dissipated her share. Finding the defendant unable to work and self-support, and the plaintiff capable of employment despite his claims of disability, the court awarded the defendant non-durational permanent maintenance of $2,500 per month and substantial attorney's fees. The plaintiff's motion to suspend or refund temporary maintenance was denied.

DivorceSpousal MaintenanceEquitable DistributionGuardianshipMental Health IssuesAsset DissipationAttorney's FeesFinancial CapacityPermanent MaintenanceMarital Property
References
12
Case No. 99 Civ. 11886 WCC
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2000

Leonard v. DUTCHESS CTY. DEPT. OF HEALTH

Plaintiffs, including restaurant and bowling center owners and the National Smokers Alliance, challenged smoking regulations promulgated by the Dutchess County Department of Health and Board of Health. They alleged violations of equal protection, free speech, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Constitution, and Article 78. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and injunctive relief. The court, treating both as motions for summary judgment, found that the Board of Health exceeded its authority under the New York State separation of powers doctrine by enacting regulations that balanced economic, social, and privacy interests, rather than solely health concerns. Specifically, the court noted the Board's consideration of non-health factors, the non-interstitial nature of the regulations compared to state law, and the County Legislature's prior failure to pass similar legislation. Consequently, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the defendants from enforcing the challenged smoking regulations.

Smoking RegulationsPublic Health LawSeparation of PowersAdministrative Agency OverreachSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDutchess CountyClean Indoor Air ActConstitutional LawArticle 78
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 4,408 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