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

Jowers v. LAKESIDE FAMILY AND CHILDREN'S SERVICES

Lynn Jowers sued Lakeside Family and Children’s Services for wrongful termination, alleging discrimination based on his medical condition (atrial fibrillation) under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Jowers filed an EEOC complaint more than two years after his termination, exceeding the 300-day statutory limit. Lakeside moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, while Jowers cross-moved to dismiss Lakeside's motion, citing ignorance of the law regarding disability discrimination. The court granted Lakeside’s motion, dismissing Jowers’ complaint with prejudice, ruling that his explanation for the late filing was insufficient for equitable tolling, particularly as he had previously filed an EEOC complaint.

Employment DiscriminationADAAtrial FibrillationWrongful TerminationStatute of LimitationsEquitable TollingEEOCMotion to DismissCriminal Background CheckFalsified Employment Application
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walstein v. Blank

The plaintiff, an unnamed barmaid, filed a complaint against her employer, Erna Blank, and coemployee, Boger Croudy, after sustaining injuries from an assault by Croudy during her employment. Defendant Erna Blank moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to allege that the employer did not provide workers' compensation insurance or instigated the assault. Citing the Workmen's Compensation Law, the court ruled that the plaintiff's injuries arose in the course of employment, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Consequently, the court granted the defendant Erna Blank's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissAssaultCo-employee InjuryExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityComplaint Sufficiency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. v. Rocco

Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. and Patrick Butler appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which granted summary judgment dismissing their complaint for breach of contract. The plaintiff, a licensed home improvement contractor, was fired by the defendants during a renovation project in Nassau County. The defendants claimed the plaintiff used unlicensed subcontractors, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The appellate court dismissed Patrick Butler's appeal but reversed the order for Patrick Butler General Contractor, Inc. It ruled there was a factual dispute regarding whether the workers hired by the plaintiff were independent contractors requiring licenses or employees exempt under Nassau County Administrative Code, thereby reinstating the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentHome Improvement ContractorsUnlicensed SubcontractorsEmployee-Employer RelationshipAppellate ReviewContract DisputeNassau County Administrative CodeCPLRReinstatement of Complaint
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1986

Patterson v. Serota

The plaintiffs, James Patterson and June Patterson, appealed a judgment and resettled judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which dismissed their complaint for personal injuries after the opening statement of their counsel. James Patterson was injured when a scaffold collapsed at a construction site owned by defendant Nathan L. Serota. The plaintiffs alleged a cause of action under Labor Law § 240. The trial court dismissed the complaint, believing counsel failed to allege Serota's involvement with the scaffolding. The Appellate Court dismissed June Patterson's appeal as her claim was voluntarily discontinued. For James Patterson, the court reversed the dismissal, holding that dismissals after an opening statement are disfavored and that an owner's duty under Labor Law § 240 is nondelegable and does not require proof of control or supervision over the workplace. The matter was remitted for a new trial regarding James Patterson's claim against Serota.

Personal InjuryScaffold CollapseConstruction Site AccidentLabor Law § 240Owner LiabilityNondelegable DutyPrima Facie CaseDismissal after Opening StatementAppellate ReviewRemittal for New Trial
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Corder v. Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America

The plaintiff, a former member of the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America, AFL-CIO, sought retirement benefits from a fund. The defendant union moved for a judgment dismissing the complaint, arguing that the plaintiff failed to state a cause of action, particularly against an unincorporated association without allegations of unanimous authorization or ratification by its members. The court acknowledged the action was directed at the union and that the complaint included a claim based on fraud. Applying liberal pleading standards under CPLR 3013, the court determined that the first cause of action sufficiently outlined the issues and theory of relief against the union. Consequently, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Retirement BenefitsUnion LiabilityUnincorporated AssociationMotion to DismissPleading SufficiencyCPLRGeneral Associations LawFraud ClaimLabor LawCivil Procedure
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cheyne v. Ferro

Plaintiffs, wholesale beer and soft drinks distributors, initiated a lawsuit against Brewery Workers Union, Local No. 263, alleging libel and malicious interference with contractual relations. The union had distributed circulars urging the public to boycott plaintiffs' products due to alleged lower wages and fewer economic benefits for their nonunion drivers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting that the matter constituted a labor dispute falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the National Labor Relations Board. The court examined whether the complaint described an unfair labor practice or a common law tort, and if state courts were pre-empted from hearing the case. Ultimately, the court determined that the complaint sounded in tort and did not allege an unfair labor practice, thereby affirming state court jurisdiction and denying the motion to dismiss.

Labor DisputeJurisdictionNational Labor Relations BoardPreemption DoctrineTort LawLibelMalicious InterferenceCPLR 3211Motion to DismissState Court Jurisdiction
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 1975

McIntyre v. Bakers For A Democratic Union

This case involves an appeal from an order denying the defendants' motion to dismiss a libel complaint. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency or for summary judgment, and also denied dismissal against defendant Caprio for lack of jurisdiction. The appellate court modified the order, dismissing the action against Caprio due to lack of jurisdiction, as he was served in New Jersey and had no New York ties. The court otherwise affirmed the denial of dismissal, finding that the subject matter of the allegedly false and indiscriminately distributed pamphlets, viewed in context of opposing affidavits, was sufficient to raise a triable issue as to actual malice. Justice Murphy dissented in part, arguing for dismissal against all appellants, asserting the leaflet targeted union officers, not the union, and that the alleged defamation arose from an intraunion dispute protected by the Labor Management Reporting and Disclosure Act. He further contended that plaintiffs failed to show actual malice with convincing clarity, as required by New York Times Co. v Sullivan.

LibelDefamationJurisdictionSummary JudgmentLabor LawUnion DisputeActual MaliceFirst AmendmentCPLRUS Code
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

Labecki v. West Side Equities, LLC

The plaintiff initiated legal action seeking damages for injuries sustained during cement work at a building owned by West Equities and managed by Garfield Development. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, citing the Workers' Compensation Law as a bar to the action. On appeal, the plaintiff contested this dismissal, arguing a factual dispute regarding the employer's identity, which could impact the applicability of Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. However, the appellate court determined that the action was precluded by the exclusivity provision for coemployees under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6). The court found that Alan Garfield, involved with both defendant entities, was a coemployee, thereby making workers' compensation the exclusive remedy. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the complaint was unanimously affirmed.

Workers' CompensationExclusivity ProvisionCoemployeeSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPremises LiabilityEmployer LiabilityNew York LawAppellate ReviewJudgment Affirmation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kirby v. Dubinsky

The case addresses a motion to dismiss a complaint filed against David Dubinsky, president of the International Ladies’ Garment Workers’ Union, and employee Thomas Bradley, for alleged trespass and destruction of property. Plaintiffs sought treble damages under Real Property Law § 534. The core legal question revolved around the liability of an unincorporated association for the intentional acts of its agents, specifically in the context of General Associations Law § 13. Citing precedents like Martin v. Curran and Torres v. Lacey, the court differentiated between intentional and unintentional wrongs. It concluded that an unincorporated association could only be held liable for an agent's intentional act, such as trespass, if all its members authorized or ratified the act. As the complaint lacked such allegations, the motion to dismiss against David Dubinsky was granted.

TrespassMotion to DismissUnincorporated AssociationAgency LawIntentional TortUnion LiabilityReal Property LawGeneral Associations LawAuthorizationRatification
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 16,764 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