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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. 02 Civ. 3288(DLC), 03 Civ. 0167, 03 Civ. 0168, 03 Civ. 0169, 03 Civ. 0170, 03 Civ. 0171, 03 Civ. 0337, 03 Civ. 0890, 03 Civ. 0891, 03 Civ. 0892, 03 Civ. 1283, 03 Civ. 1284, 03 Civ. 2839, 03 Civ. 3859, 03 Civ. 3860, 03 Civ. 4499, 03 Civ. 4500, 03 Civ. 6226, 03 Civ. 6227, 03 Civ. 6592, 03 Civ. 7297, 03 Civ. 7806, 03 Civ. 8269, 03 Civ. 8270, 03 Civ. 8271, 03 Civ. 8923, 03 Civ. 8924, 03 Civ. 9168, 03 Civ. 9400, 03 Civ. 9401, 03 Civ. 9402, 03 Civ. 9823, 03 Civ. 9824
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2004

In Re Worldcom, Inc. Securities Litigation

This case addresses motions for reconsideration and dismissal in a multi-district litigation stemming from the WorldCom, Inc. financial collapse. The court affirmed that Section 13 of the Securities Act, not the Sarbanes-Oxley Act's Section 804, dictates the statute of limitations for Section 11 and 12(a)(2) claims, as these actions were deliberately pleaded as strict liability/negligence rather than fraud. It also held that the 'American Pipe' tolling doctrine does not apply to individual actions filed independently before class certification, leading to many time-barred claims. Furthermore, the court upheld the dismissal of a Section 12(a)(2) claim regarding a December 2000 private placement, affirming that such placements fall outside the scope of Section 12(a)(2). Requests for leave to amend complaints were largely denied due to lack of diligence and bad faith in strategic pleading.

Securities LitigationClass ActionStatute of LimitationsSarbanes-Oxley ActSecurities Act of 1933American Pipe Tolling DoctrineRule 15(c) Relation-BackPrivate PlacementMotion to DismissMotion for Reconsideration
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Beer v. John Hancock Life Insurance

Plaintiff Yoram Beer sued various insurance companies to recover disability and life insurance benefits after suffering a heart attack, claiming total disability. Defendants denied the claims, leading to the plaintiff initiating litigation. The plaintiff later moved to dismiss the entire action with prejudice and without costs, while the defendants cross-moved for attorneys' fees, alleging the plaintiff's litigation was commenced in bad faith, and sought costs. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for dismissal with prejudice, reasoning that such a dismissal freed defendants from relitigation without causing them prejudice. It denied the defendants' request for attorneys' fees, finding insufficient evidence of bad faith or a meritless claim, but allowed them to seek allowable costs, excluding those related to a prior stipulated dismissal.

Voluntary DismissalDismissal with PrejudiceAttorneys' FeesCostsBad Faith LitigationRule 41(a)(2) MotionRule 54(d) CostsPrevailing PartyDisability Insurance BenefitsLife Insurance Policy
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2016

The Matter of New York City Asbestos Litigation , Doris Kay Dummitt v. A.W. Chesterton , The Matter of Eighth Judicial District Asbestos Litigation , Joann H. Suttner v. A.W. Chesterton Company

This New York Court of Appeals opinion addresses the scope of a manufacturer's duty to warn regarding dangers arising from the use of its product in combination with a third-party product. The Court held that such a duty exists when the third-party product is necessary for the manufacturer's product to function as intended, whether due to design, mechanics, or economic necessity, and the danger is known and foreseeable. Applying this rule, the Court affirmed judgments against Crane Co. in two separate asbestos litigations, finding that Crane had a duty to warn users of its valves about asbestos exposure from third-party sealing components. The decision clarified the balance of risks and costs in products liability law.

Product LiabilityFailure to WarnAsbestos ExposureMesotheliomaManufacturer DutyCombined Product UseForeseeability of HarmEconomic NecessityComponent Parts DoctrineStrict Liability
References
91
Case No. ADJ11080934
Regular
Oct 28, 2025

JUAN MARTINEZ vs. CREAM OF THE CROP AG SERVICE, INC.; CA FARM MANAGEMENT, INC.

The applicant, Juan Martinez, sought reconsideration of a prior decision that reversed a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge's (WCJ) order imposing sanctions against the defendant for alleged frivolous tactics. The Appeals Board originally found insufficient evidence of bad-faith conduct by the defendant, Cream of the Crop AG Service, Inc. and CA Farm Management, Inc. In this petition, the applicant sought clarification on the standard of review and claimed certain issues were not addressed. The Board denied the applicant's petition, reiterating its finding that the defendant's actions did not constitute bad-faith litigation tactics under Labor Code section 5813, and confirmed that the responsibility for pursuing discovery, such as a neuropsychological evaluation recommended by Dr. Bhatia in 2018, did not rest solely on the defendant.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationLabor Code Section 5813SanctionsAttorneys' FeesFrivolous TacticsBad Faith ConductNeuropsychology EvaluationAdditional PanelsReconsideration Proceedings
References
13
Case No. 2010 NY Slip Op 32441[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2010

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. American Re-Insurance

This dissenting opinion addresses the affirmation of a judgment that granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. The dissent argues that a genuine triable issue of fact exists regarding whether a portion of a substantial settlement between United States Fidelity & Guaranty Company (USF&G) and Western MacArthur was attributable to bad faith claims, which are purportedly not covered by the defendants' reinsurance treaty. The dissenting judge contends that the treaty's plain language excludes such extra-contractual liabilities and that the majority incorrectly applied the 'follow the fortunes' clause. Furthermore, the dissent cites findings from bankruptcy court and evidence from the underlying Western MacArthur v USF&G coverage litigation, both suggesting that bad faith damages were indeed part of the settlement. Therefore, the dissenting justice advocates for denying the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and vacating the judgment.

ReinsuranceBad Faith ClaimsSettlement AgreementSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationDissenting OpinionExtra-Contractual LiabilityFollow the Fortunes ClauseBankruptcy Court FindingsCoverage Litigation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. Koehler

The petitioner, Victor Soto, a tenured Correction Officer, was terminated during a probationary period on January 19, 1989, following disciplinary charges related to an auto accident and subsequent alleged excessive lateness. Soto filed a CPLR article 78 petition to challenge his termination, claiming bad faith, arguing that many of his eight latenesses were excusable due to external factors like snowstorms and transportation issues, and emphasizing his otherwise good work record. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, finding no evidence of bad faith. This appellate decision affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the petitioner failed to prove bad faith, and that termination for lateness is a rational basis, particularly for a probationary employee, under the limited scope of judicial review for such cases. The dissenting opinion argued that the circumstances, including excusable latenesses and strong support from supervisors, demonstrated bad faith.

Correction OfficerProbationary EmploymentEmployee TerminationExcessive LatenessBad Faith AllegationCivil Service LawArticle 78 ReviewUnemployment BenefitsJudicial Review ScopeAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. 00 Civ. 1898, M21-88, MDL 1358
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether Products Liability Litigation

This opinion and order denies Orange County Water District's (OCWD) motion to remand its action to state court. OCWD, a plaintiff in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) involving water contamination by MTBE, argued that its case was improperly removed from state court under bankruptcy statutes. The District Court, presided over by Judge Shira A. Scheindlin, found that OCWD's motion to remand was untimely under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) because it was filed more than 30 days after the notice of removal. The court emphasized that improper removal is a procedural defect, waivable if not challenged within 30 days, while a lack of subject matter jurisdiction can be raised at any time. As the court retained core bankruptcy jurisdiction, the motion was denied, highlighting Congress's intent to prevent late-stage forum shopping and ensure efficient litigation in MDLs.

Multidistrict LitigationMTBE ContaminationWater PollutionRemoval JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionBankruptcy LawRemand MotionProcedural DefectWaiver28 U.S.C. 1447(c)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Saic Inc. Derivative Litigation

This Memorandum and Order addresses a shareholder derivative suit against SAIC, Inc. and its Board of Directors. Plaintiffs Welch and Stellini alleged that the directors consciously ignored or perpetuated significant wrongdoing related to the CityTime program, involving massive overbilling and fraud on New York City. The court granted SAIC's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that the plaintiffs failed to satisfy the demand futility requirement under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.1 and Delaware law. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not plead with particularity that a majority of the board directors faced a substantial likelihood of liability for breaching their duties of loyalty and good faith, as required by the Caremark and Rales tests for oversight liability. The court found that the alleged 'red flags' (SOR admissions, core operations, public reports, magnitude of fraud, and similar past misconduct) were insufficient to demonstrate actual or constructive knowledge and bad faith inaction by the board. Plaintiffs' request for leave to amend was denied.

Shareholder Derivative SuitDemand FutilityCorporate GovernanceFiduciary DutyDuty of LoyaltyDuty of Good FaithOversight LiabilityCaremark DoctrineRales TestMotion to Dismiss
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Workers' Compensation Board

A probationary employee's termination by the Workers' Compensation Board was upheld on appeal. The employee initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith, but the Supreme Court dismissed the application. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that probationary employees can be terminated without explanation or a hearing unless the discharge is for constitutionally impermissible reasons, legal violations, or bad faith. The petitioner failed to demonstrate bad faith or that the termination was unrelated to job performance, as evidence showed deficiencies in understanding Workers' Compensation Law, lack of improvement after training, and improper conduct.

Employment TerminationProbationary EmployeeUnsatisfactory PerformanceBad FaithCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCivil Service LawAdministrative LawPublic Employment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,454 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