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
Jan 14, 1998

Joyce v. Curtiss-Wright Corp.

This class action was commenced by retired Curtiss-Wright employees, represented by the United Steelworkers of America, against Curtiss-Wright Corporation. Plaintiffs alleged that Curtiss-Wright breached its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and violated ERISA by unilaterally terminating retiree health insurance benefits in May 1987, seeking damages and a permanent injunction for lifetime benefits. The central legal question revolved around whether these retiree health insurance benefits were vested for the retirees' lives. Initially, the court denied cross-motions for summary judgment, finding the relevant contract language ambiguous, and a jury subsequently found a breach of the CBA by Curtiss-Wright. However, the court later re-examined the documents in light of new Second Circuit precedent, which provided a narrower standard for interpreting CBAs and insurance plan documents concerning vesting. The court ultimately concluded that the CBA and insurance plan documents unambiguously established that benefits were tied to the specific durational clauses of the agreements and were terminable upon their expiration. Furthermore, the plaintiffs' claim for breach of fiduciary duty under ERISA was denied as duplicative. Consequently, all of the plaintiffs' motions for judgment, including for a permanent injunction, were denied.

Employee Retirement Income Security ActLabor Management Relations ActRetiree Health BenefitsVested BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementInsurance AgreementFiduciary DutySummary Plan DescriptionSummary Annual ReportContract Interpretation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wright v. Colvin

Plaintiff Kimmey Wright sought judicial review of a final decision by the Acting Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin, denying her applications for Social Security Disability (SSD) and Supplemental Security Income (SSI). Judge William F. Kuntz, II presided over the motions for judgment on the pleadings from both parties. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) had previously denied Wright's applications, finding she was not disabled under the five-step SSA process, determining she had severe impairments but an adequate residual functional capacity (RFC) for certain jobs. Wright challenged the ALJ's decision, arguing a violation of the treating physician rule regarding Dr. Lubin's testimony and that the vocational expert's (VE) testimony did not reflect her RFC. The Court denied Plaintiff's motion and granted the Commissioner's, upholding the ALJ's determination that the ALJ provided sufficient reasons to discount Dr. Lubin's opinion and that the VE's testimony was based on a correct RFC.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeTreating Physician RuleVocational Expert TestimonyResidual Functional CapacitySchizophreniaMajor Depressive DisorderPersonality Disorder
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04445
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2024

Argueta v. Hall & Wright, LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Daniel Santiago Argueta, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling from a sloped roof during a home renovation project. He subsequently sued the property owner, 520X Residential, LLC, and the construction manager, Hall and Wright, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the Labor Law causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, ruling that Hall and Wright, LLC, lacked the necessary supervisory control to be considered a statutory agent, and 520X Residential, LLC, qualified for the homeowner's exemption, as the work was for residential use and they did not direct or control the work.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentHomeowner ExemptionStatutory AgentSupervisory ControlElevation-Related HazardAppellate ReviewRoofing Work
References
28
Case No. 00 Civ. 7635(GBD)(FM)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2004

Wright v. Goldman, Sachs & Co.

Plaintiff Rodney Wright filed an employment discrimination action against his former employer, Goldman, Sachs & Company, and several employees, alleging disparate treatment, denial of promotion, and constructive discharge based on race under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983. Magistrate Judge Frank Maas recommended granting the defendants' motion for summary judgment. District Judge George B. Daniels adopted the Report and Recommendation, finding no clear error. The court concluded that Wright failed to establish a prima facie case for failure-to-promote, constructive discharge, or disparate treatment, and that his Section 1981 and 1983 claims also lacked merit. Consequently, the motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed.

employment discriminationsummary judgmentdisparate treatmentconstructive dischargeTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983race discriminationmotion to dismissfederal court
References
53
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07110
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

People v. R.V.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order by the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted the defendant R.V.'s CPL 210.40 motion to dismiss the indictment in furtherance of justice. The court found that the Supreme Court providently exercised its discretion, noting that R.V. purchased a false Covid-19 vaccination card to maintain employment as an essential worker during the pandemic. The decision highlighted that R.V.'s actions caused no specific or societal harm, supporting the dismissal in the interest of justice.

Indictment DismissalInterest of JusticeCPL 210.40COVID-19 Vaccination CardEssential WorkerAppellate ReviewDiscretionary DismissalLack of Harm
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 06233
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2024

Wright v. Pennings

The plaintiff, Brian P. Wright, sustained personal injuries when an unsecured 20-foot extension ladder fell and struck him while a coworker was installing wiring. The ladder slipped on a rubber mat covered in cow manure and hay. The plaintiff commenced an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and granted the defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the amended complaint, finding the plaintiff established prima facie that the unsecured ladder violated Labor Law § 240 (1) and proximately caused his injuries. The court also found the defendant failed to establish prima facie entitlement to dismissal of the Labor Law §§ 241 (6) and 200 claims, and the common-law negligence claim.

Personal InjuryLabor LawLadder AccidentWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProximate CauseElevation-Related RiskIndustrial CodeNegligence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wolfgang Doerr v. Daniel Goldsmith / Cheryl Dobinski v. George O. Lockhart

This concurring opinion by Justice Abdus-Salaam addresses two cases, Doerr v Goldsmith and Dobinski v Lockhart, concerning negligence claims against domestic animal owners for injuries caused by their pets. The opinion reaffirms the long-standing "vicious propensities" rule established in Bard v Jahnke, which limits liability solely to strict liability when an owner knew or should have known of an animal's dangerous tendencies. Justice Abdus-Salaam rejects arguments to extend the Hastings v Sauve precedent, which allowed negligence claims for farm animals straying from property, to domestic pets. The opinion also refutes the distinction between an owner's active control and passive failure to restrain, emphasizing that a pet's volitional behavior is the ultimate cause of harm. Consequently, Justice Abdus-Salaam votes to dismiss the negligence claims in both cases and affirms the dismissal of Dobinski's strict liability claim due to insufficient evidence of the owners' prior knowledge of their dogs' propensities.

Animal LawNegligenceStrict LiabilityDomestic AnimalsFarm AnimalsVicious Propensity RuleDuty of CareSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Johnson

This opinion from the Court of Appeals addresses the critical issue of juror impartiality in criminal trials, specifically concerning challenges for cause when prospective jurors express doubts about their fairness. The Court consolidated three cases: People v. Johnson and People v. Sharper, both robbery cases involving juror bias towards police testimony, and People v. Reyes, a drug sale case where jurors harbored biases related to drug abuse and a defendant's prior convictions. The Court reiterated that when potential jurors reveal a state of mind likely to preclude impartial service, they must provide unequivocal assurance of their ability to set aside any bias and render a verdict based solely on evidence. Concluding that the trial judges in these cases failed to obtain such unequivocal assurances, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's reversal of convictions in Johnson and Sharper, and reversed the Appellate Division's affirmation of conviction in Reyes, ordering a new trial. This decision underscores the fundamental constitutional right to an impartial jury and clarifies the standard for excusing biased jurors under CPL 270.20.

Jury SelectionVoir DireJuror ImpartialityChallenge for CauseUnequivocal AssurancePolice Testimony BiasDrug Offense BiasPrior Conviction BiasCriminal Procedure LawAppellate Review
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 20,394 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