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

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Golden Distributors, Ltd.

The debtor, Golden Distributors, Ltd., in a Chapter 11 case, moved to classify employee benefit claims, while several unions cross-moved for full administrative expense treatment. The court addressed the priority of sick leave, personal holidays, vacation, and severance pay for both union and non-union former employees. It concluded that most of these claims, including all severance pay and union vacation pay, qualify as administrative expenses or similar high-priority claims. However, all such employee claims were deemed subordinate to the super-priority secured liens held by the post-petition lenders.

BankruptcyChapter 11Administrative ExpensesEmployee BenefitsSeverance PayVacation PayCollective Bargaining AgreementSuper-priority LiensDebtor in PossessionUnions
References
17
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 892
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2007

In the Matter of Cagle v. Judge Motor Corporation

This case involves a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The initial motion for leave to appeal was previously denied, as referenced in 7 NY3d 922. Kim M. Cagle, as Voluntary Administrator of the Estate of John R. Cagle, Deceased, is the appellant. Judge Motor Corporation and the Workers' Compensation Board are the respondents. The Court of Appeals of the State of New York considered the motion on February 5, 2007, and rendered its decision on March 22, 2007.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealWorkers' CompensationEstateVoluntary Administrator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Groth v. Daimler Chrysler Corp.

This legal motion pertained to a request for leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order. The Appellate Division had previously denied reargument in the underlying case. The court dismissed the motion for leave to appeal, reasoning that the Appellate Division's order did not constitute a final determination as defined by the Constitution. Separate from this, any other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were also denied.

References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Zachari

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The decision included an award of $10 costs. Justices Breitel, Rabin, Valente, Eager, and Steuer concurred with the decision.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedJudicial Concurrence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Duralite Co. v. Local 222, Metal, Plastics, Miscellaneous Sales, Novelty and Production Workers

A motion for leave to reargue or for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied, with an imposition of $10 costs. The decision was concurred by Justice Presiding Breitel, along with Justices Rabin, M. M. Frank, Valente, and McNally.

Motion to ReargueLeave to AppealCourt of AppealsCosts AwardedConcurring JusticesAppellate DivisionDenial of Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Templeton v. Veterans Administration

The plaintiff, a probationary federal employee, filed a pro se complaint against the Veterans Administration’s Medical Center, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and challenging his discharge on other grounds. The court found venue improper for the discrimination claim, noting it should be in California or Missouri based on statutory provisions. For the non-discrimination claim, the court determined the plaintiff failed to show procedural defects or arbitrary action in his dismissal, as the VA followed established regulations and provided rational bases for termination. Consequently, the non-discrimination claim was dismissed, and the discrimination claim was transferred to the Central District of California due to improper venue.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIFederal EmploymentVenueProbationary EmployeeWrongful DischargeDue ProcessProperty InterestLiberty InterestAdministrative Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2000

Farrell v. Child Welfare Administration

Plaintiff Janet Farrell, acting pro se, filed a lawsuit against the New York City Child Welfare Administration (CWA), alleging wrongful termination based on national origin in violation of Title VII and other civil rights statutes. Farrell claimed she was fired from her caseworker position in 1995 after failing a training program and receiving a low exam score. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) found no evidence of national origin discrimination, concluding she was terminated due to her failure to complete requisite training. CWA moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the Court granted, dismissing the complaint in its entirety without prejudice. The Court allowed Farrell to file an amended complaint by January 20, 2000, to provide more specific factual allegations to support her claims.

Employment discriminationTitle VIINational origin discriminationPro se litigantRule 12(c) motionJudgment on the pleadingsFailure to state a claimMunicipal liabilityCivil Rights ActNew York Executive Law
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 5,550 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