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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
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. No. 6; No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Diane C. v. Richard B.

This case involves appeals from two Family Court orders concerning David B., a child born in 2004. The grandmother, Cheryl E., appealed orders which adjudicated David B. as neglected and granted sole custody to the father, Richard B. (Allen D.), while terminating her visitation rights. The Chenango County Department of Social Services (DSS) initiated the neglect proceeding, alleging the grandmother failed to provide proper supervision and alienated the child from his father. The Family Court found the grandmother neglected the child based on a pattern of behavior, including making false abuse allegations against the father and repeatedly upsetting the child, a finding affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court also affirmed the dispositional order, concluding that awarding sole custody to the father and terminating the grandmother's visitation was in the child's best interests, given the psychological harm visitation posed.

Child NeglectCustody ModificationFamily Court Act Article 10Family Court Act Article 6Parental AlienationFalse Allegations of AbuseBest Interests of the ChildPsychological EvaluationGrandparent CustodyVisitation Termination
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jermyn v. Best Buy Stores, L.P.

This case addresses Defendant Best Buy's second motion to decertify a class of New York customers who alleged the company denied valid price match requests through a secret corporate "Anti-Price Matching Policy." The court had previously certified the class for both injunctive relief under Rule 23(b)(2) and money damages under Rule 23(b)(3). Best Buy's motion for decertification was based on the Supreme Court's decision in Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, which clarified standards for class commonality and the appropriateness of monetary claims in Rule 23(b)(2) classes. The court denied the motion, distinguishing Dukes by noting that the plaintiffs here successfully alleged and provided substantial proof of a specific, centralized illegal corporate policy, unlike the broad discretion at issue in Dukes. Furthermore, the court emphasized that its certification involved separate classes for injunctive and monetary relief, thus not violating Dukes' guidance on combined (b)(2) claims.

Class ActionDecertification MotionCommonalityRule 23(b)(2) CertificationRule 23(b)(3) CertificationConsumer ProtectionPrice Match PolicyDeceptive Business PracticesCorporate PolicyMonetary Damages
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larsen v. JBC Legal Group, P.C.

The plaintiff, Kimberley Larsen, filed a class action lawsuit against JBC Legal Group, P.C., and other defendants under the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA). Larsen alleged that the defendants violated the FDCPA by sending a misleading collection letter attempting to collect debts from New York consumers. The plaintiff defined two classes, Class A and Class B, based on different alleged FDCPA violations. Larsen moved for permission to move simultaneously for summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, or alternatively, for Rule 23(b)(2) class certification, primarily to shift the cost of notice to the defendants. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for simultaneous summary judgment and Rule 23(b)(3) class certification, citing Supreme Court precedent that typically requires the plaintiff to bear the cost of notice. The court also indicated that Rule 23(b)(2) certification is unlikely to be granted in FDCPA cases in the Second Circuit.

FDCPAClass ActionSummary JudgmentClass CertificationRule 23(b)(3)Rule 23(b)(2)Cost of NoticeFair Debt CollectionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDebt Collection Practices
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vengurlekar v. Silverline Technologies, Ltd.

Plaintiffs Gajanan Vengurlekar and Umesh Pachpande brought a class action alleging violations of ERISA, FLSA, and the New Jersey Wage Payment Law, along with state common law claims, against Silver-line Technologies, Inc., SeraNova, Inc., and affiliated entities. They sought class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2) or alternatively under Rule 23(b)(3). The court denied class certification in its entirety. Certification under Rule 23(b)(2) was found inappropriate because the primary relief sought was monetary damages. Certification under Rule 23(b)(3) was denied due to insufficient numerosity for ERISA claims, lack of similarly situated plaintiffs for the FLSA claim (which was dismissed sua sponte as plaintiffs were exempt), and issues with commonality, typicality, and predominance for the state law claims, particularly concerning the extraterritorial application of the New Jersey Wage Payment Law.

Class ActionERISA ViolationsFLSA ViolationsNew Jersey Wage Payment LawClass CertificationRule 23(b)(2)Rule 23(b)(3)Numerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality Requirement
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregory B. v. Gregory F.

This consolidated appeal addresses whether incarcerated parents "permanently neglected" their children under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a), thus justifying the termination of parental rights. In Matter of Gregory B., the father, incarcerated since 1980, proposed long-term foster care for his children until his release, which was rejected. Similarly, in Matter of Willie John B. and Matter of Delores B., the father, incarcerated since 1979, also offered indefinite foster care after relatives were found unwilling or unable to provide care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights in all cases, holding that while 1983 statutory reforms acknowledged special circumstances for incarcerated parents, they did not excuse them from planning for their child's future. The Court concluded that indefinite foster care is not a "viable plan" as it is inconsistent with the purpose of foster care and deprives children of the essential permanency required for proper growth and development.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationIncarcerated ParentSocial Services LawFoster CareAdoptionChild WelfareFamily LawCourt of AppealsJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 22, 1994

Hess v. B & B Plastics Division of Metal Cladding, Inc.

Plaintiff Carolyn K. Hess sued her former employer B & B Plastics and her union (Local 686 and UAW) for sex discrimination under the New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged discriminatory firing by B & B Plastics and discriminatory refusal by the union to pursue her grievance. The union defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting that Hess's claim against them constituted a breach of the duty of fair representation, which is preempted by the Labor Management Relations Act (LMRA). Hess moved to remand the case to state court, arguing her claims were independent state law actions. The court, citing precedent, found that Hess's state law claims against the union were completely preempted by Section 301 of the LMRA. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to remand those claims to state court was denied, and the court retained supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claim against the employer.

Sex discriminationNew York State Human Rights LawLabor Management Relations ActLMRA Section 301Federal preemptionDuty of fair representationMotion to remandFederal question jurisdictionWell-pleaded complaint ruleCollective bargaining agreement
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2018

Matter of Bobbi B. (Bobby B.)

This case concerns an appeal by Bobby B., the father, against an order from the Family Court, Bronx County. The Family Court found the father neglected his child, Bobbi B., by engaging in domestic violence in her presence. The court's finding was based on the testimony of a shelter worker who witnessed the father assaulting the mother while she held their one-month-old child. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that there was no basis to overturn the credibility determinations. The court reiterated that even a single instance of domestic violence can be sufficient for a finding of neglect and properly discredited the father's denial of a domestic violence history due to a prior assault conviction and an existing order of protection.

Child neglectDomestic violenceFamily CourtAppellate DivisionCredibility determinationOrder of protectionChild endangermentThird-degree assaultInfant protectionParental neglect
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 12,409 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