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

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
Case No. ADJ3687516
Regular
Jan 26, 2012

RAMONA ANAYA, JUAN JOSE GONZALEZ, JESUS CERVANTES, JULIE ANN CABEZA, WALTER CRABTREE vs. PORT HUENEME UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, J. M. SMUCKERS, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES, AMERICAN TECHNOLOGIES, INC., AIG DOMESTIC CLAIMS, INC., GHL ENTERPRISES, CIGA, INTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, INC., PAULA INSURANCE COMPANY, MARY HEALTH OF THE SICK, REDISED INSURANCE, CRAWFY AND COMPANY, M.R. AUTOMOTIVE, CIGA, Administrative inTERCARE INSURANCE SERVICES, HIH AMERICA COMPENSATION

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Attorney M. Francesca Hannan's request for a waiver of fees or a payment plan for reporter's transcripts. Hannan sought the transcripts to support allegations of bias by a Workers' Compensation Judge and claimed financial hardship and limited time for preparation. The Board found no legal basis for the fee waiver or payment plan under applicable rules and statutes, though it affirmed Hannan's right to obtain the transcripts upon payment.

WCABPetitionReporter's TranscriptFee WaiverPayment PlanGovernment Code 68632Administrative Director Rule 9990Appeals Board Rule 10740AnayaLien Trial
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1979

Jordan v. Estate of Newman

The Workers' Compensation Board awarded benefits to a claimant for injuries sustained in 1974. The employer, Jennie Newman, died in October 1974, and no legal representative was appointed for her estate. The court determined that the Board lacked jurisdiction to make an award against the deceased employer's estate as no party existed over which it could exercise jurisdiction following Newman's death, citing that proceedings against a deceased party before substitution of a personal representative are null and void. The case was reversed and remitted to the Board to secure jurisdiction over Newman's estate through the appointment of a legal representative. The court also rejected the Uninsured Employers' Fund's argument of waiver of personal jurisdiction, stating there was no factual support and waiver was impossible without a legally appointed representative for the estate.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionDeceased EmployerLegal RepresentativeEstateUninsured Employers' FundRemittalPersonal JurisdictionWaiverAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1996

Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. v. Hugo Neu & Sons, Inc.

This case involves a dispute between Orient Shipping Rotterdam B.V. (plaintiff, ship owner) and Hugo Neu & Sons, Inc. (defendant, charterer) over demurrage incurred at the port of Bombay, India. The plaintiff claimed demurrage after its vessel experienced significant delays in berthing due to port congestion and a transporters' strike. The court examined the charterparty's exception clause, finding that it broadly excused the charterer from liability for delays beyond their control, including port congestion. The court also rejected plaintiff's arguments of estoppel, waiver, laches, and duress regarding the defendant's waiver of a cesser clause, affirming the plaintiff's right to lien the cargo. Ultimately, the court denied the plaintiff's claim for demurrage and granted the defendant's counterclaim for despatch.

Shipping LawDemurrageCharterpartyPort CongestionStrikesForce MajeureCesser ClauseMaritime LawContract InterpretationAdmiralty Jurisdiction
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cuadrado

The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion under CPL 440.10, vacating an earlier conviction for first-degree assault, due to a perceived jurisdictionally defective waiver of indictment. The Appellate Division reversed this order, denying the defendant's motion and reinstating the original conviction and sentence. The majority held that CPL 440.10(2)(c) bars the defendant from raising an issue in a collateral attack that could have been reviewed on direct appeal, even if it concerns a jurisdictional defect. The court rejected the argument that applying this statutory bar in such a case would be unconstitutional. The dissenting opinion argued that the conviction was void ab initio because the waiver of indictment violated CPL 195.10(2)(b), asserting that such a fundamental jurisdictional defect cannot be procedurally waived.

Criminal ProcedureCPL 440.10Waiver of IndictmentJurisdictional DefectCollateral AttackAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessSuperior Court InformationConstitutional RightsJudgment Vacatur
References
34
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 23413
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

Gur Assoc. LLC v. Convenience on Eight Corp.

The New York Civil Court denied a motion by Convenience on Eight Corporation (tenant) to dismiss a commercial holdover proceeding initiated by Gur Associates LLC (landlord). The landlord sought eviction due to the premises' alleged illegal use for unlicensed cannabis sales by an undertenant, Bing Bong Candy Shop Inc. The tenant's motion, which also sought to vacate a default, cited improper service, defective notices, insufficient allegations of illegal use, and waiver by rent acceptance. The court found that the landlord adequately pleaded illegal use under RPAPL 715-a (4), rejecting the tenant's arguments regarding service, notice requirements, and the claim that rent acceptance constituted a waiver, citing strong public policy against illegal use.

Commercial LeaseHoldover ProceedingIllegal UseCannabis SalesUnlicensed BusinessEvictionPersonal JurisdictionService of ProcessMotion to DismissDefault Judgment
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capital Newspapers Division—The Hearst Corp. v. Hartnett

This CPLR Article 78 proceeding involved a petitioner challenging a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals, which found the petitioner guilty of violating Labor Law § 162 (4) concerning meal periods for night shift pressmen. The petitioner unilaterally advanced the meal period window, prompting a complaint from the Pressmen's Union. The Industrial Board of Appeals upheld the violation, rejecting the petitioner's argument that the statutory requirement could be waived. Citing precedent from Matter of American Broadcasting Cos. v Roberts, this court found that the Board erred in concluding that the statute's purpose precluded any waiver or modification of meal period terms. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter to the Industrial Board of Appeals to determine if a valid waiver, freely and knowingly made, had occurred.

Labor LawMeal PeriodCollective Bargaining AgreementWaiver of Statutory RightsAdministrative ReviewIndustrial Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationsPressmen's Union
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Locario v. State

The case concerns whether the State of New York can be held liable under New York City Administrative Code § 7-210 as an abutting landowner for sidewalk maintenance. The State argued that its waiver of immunity, set forth in Court of Claims Act § 8, does not extend to liability created by local law. However, the court found that Court of Claims Act § 8's waiver of sovereign immunity is limited only by its procedural requirements and the Workers’ Compensation Law, not by tort liability created by local law. The court also determined that Municipal Home Rule Law § 11 (1) (j) does not prohibit local governments from transferring liability to the State as an abutting property owner, as long as no state statute is superseded. Distinguishing prior cases, the court concluded that the State's arguments against liability were unavailing, effectively upholding the State's potential liability under the local law.

Sovereign ImmunityTort LiabilitySidewalk MaintenanceLocal LawState LiabilityAdministrative CodeCourt of Claims ActMunicipal Home Rule LawStatutory ConstructionAbutting Landowner
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silverman v. Carvel Corp.

Plaintiff Walter Silverman commenced an action against Carvel Corporation, alleging contractual and tort claims stemming from a franchise agreement that expired in October 1999. Silverman claimed lost profits due to Carvel's new supermarket distribution program, which allowed its products to be sold in outlets other than franchised stores like his. Carvel moved to dismiss the complaint for improper venue, citing a forum selection clause in the agreement that stipulated actions against Carvel by a licensee must be brought in the Supreme Court of New York in Westchester County. Silverman challenged the clause's enforceability due to alleged lack of mutuality and argued Carvel had waived its right to enforce it through actions in prior, unrelated litigation. The court rejected both of Silverman's arguments, finding the forum selection clause enforceable and the waiver argument unsubstantiated. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice, directing Silverman to refile in the specified state court.

Franchise AgreementForum Selection ClauseBreach of ContractTortious InterferenceImproper VenueMutualityWaiverFederal JurisdictionDiversity of CitizenshipContract Law
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jung v. Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP

Jonathan Jung sued his former employer Skadden, Arps, Slate, Meagher & Flom, LLP, alleging race and national origin discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York State Human Rights Law, and the New York City Human Rights Law. Skadden moved to compel arbitration and stay litigation, citing an arbitration agreement Jung signed upon employment. Jung opposed, arguing Skadden waived its right to arbitrate by engaging in protracted litigation, specifically a Rule 12(b)(6) motion, and causing prejudice through excessive cost, delay, and forum shopping. The court, presided over by Judge Mukasey, found that Jung had not suffered sufficient prejudice to establish waiver. The court noted that a Rule 12(b)(6) motion does not create substantive prejudice akin to discovery advantages, and mere pretrial expense and delay are not enough to constitute waiver. The court also rejected Jung's forum shopping argument based on Second Circuit precedent. Consequently, Skadden's motion to compel arbitration and stay the action was granted.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliationEmployment LawArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActWaiver of ArbitrationRule 12(b)(6) MotionPrejudice
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 2,369 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