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. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. 192-1049-352
Regular Panel Decision

Goodman v. Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp. (In Re Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp.)

Howard P. Goodman, a former Chief Financial Officer for Mr. Goodbuys of New York Corp., Inc., filed an adversary proceeding seeking severance pay and damages under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN) and to recover under his Proof of Claim No. 833. The Debtors-Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and expunge the claim. The court found that Goodman was terminated on September 27, 1991, which was more than 90 days prior to the mass layoffs at Mr. Goodbuys in January/February 1992. Therefore, Goodman did not qualify as an "affected employee" under WARN, and his pleadings failed to state a claim for relief. Consequently, the court granted the Debtors-Defendants' motion, dismissing Goodman's complaint with prejudice and expunging his Proof of Claim No. 833.

BankruptcyMotion to DismissWARN ActEmployment TerminationSeverance PayProof of ClaimAdversary ProceedingChapter 11Pro Se LitigantMass Layoff
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hicks v. IBM

Plaintiff Brenda Hicks, who is half Native American and half African American, brought an employment discrimination claim against her employer IBM and four individual employees (Marty Ricker, George Walker, J.J. Sinnott, and Dr. Katherine Frase). The claims were filed under 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and New York's Executive Law §§ 296 and 297, alleging racially discriminatory job assignments, lack of commensurate training, and a racially oppressive work environment. The individual defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing a lack of individual liability. The court denied the motion to dismiss the § 1981 claims against all individual defendants and the § 296 claims against Walker, Sinnott, and Frase, but granted Defendant Ricker's motion to dismiss the § 296(6) claim against him, reasoning that a primary actor cannot aid and abet his own actions.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentIndividual Liability42 U.S.C. § 1981New York Executive Law § 296Motion to DismissSupervisor LiabilityAiding and AbettingCivil Rights
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Lesline v. State

An inmate, the claimant, appealed the dismissal of his claim against the State of New York. He sought damages alleging severe emotional distress after his photograph, taken during an educational program at Great Meadow Correctional Facility, was published in the New York Times without his consent. The claimant asserted violations of his statutory and constitutional privacy rights, and cruel and unusual punishment. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, noting that public policy bars claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress against the State. It also found no factual basis for claims of malice, and determined that the photograph, illustrating an article of general public interest, did not infringe upon privacy rights under constitutional law or New York Civil Rights Law sections 50 and 51, as it was not used for trade or advertising. The argument regarding cruel and unusual punishment was also deemed unfounded.

Privacy RightsCivil Rights LawIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressCruel and Unusual PunishmentInmate RightsPublication without ConsentCourt of ClaimsAppellate DecisionGovernment LiabilityNew York State Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Novo Nordisk of North America, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.

The plaintiffs, three Novo Nordisk entities, sued defendant Genentech seeking a declaratory judgment of patent invalidity and non-infringement, and asserted antitrust claims. Genentech filed a motion to dismiss claims three and four of the plaintiffs' complaint. The court granted in part Genentech's motion, dismissing the 'sham' litigation antitrust claim (claim four) under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, finding the prior ITC proceeding was not objectively baseless. However, the court denied dismissal of the 'Walker Process' antitrust claim (claim three), which alleged fraudulent procurement of a patent, due to uncertainty regarding Noerr-Pennington's applicability to such claims and adequate pleading of a Sherman Act violation. The motion to dismiss was partially granted, dismissing the 'sham' litigation claim but allowing the 'fraudulent procurement' claim to proceed.

Motion to DismissAntitrust LawPatent InfringementDeclaratory JudgmentNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham LitigationWalker Process ClaimSherman ActRule 12(b)(6)Patent Validity
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Len v. State

Decedent, an employee of New York State Canal Corporation, tragically died after falling from a movable dam on the Erie Canal while clearing debris. His father, as administrator, subsequently filed a wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering claim against the Corporation, the State of New York, and the New York State Thruway Authority. Defendants moved to dismiss, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity. The Court of Claims granted the dismissal, deeming the New York State Thruway Authority an alter ego of the Corporation and thus entitled to the exclusivity defense, and also found proposed Labor Law claims against the State lacked merit. The appellate court affirmed, concurring that the Corporation was an alter ego of the Authority for workers' compensation purposes and that the decedent's work constituted routine maintenance, not alteration or construction under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6).

Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivityalter ego doctrineLabor Law Section 240(1)Labor Law Section 241(6)routine maintenancesignificant physical changeconstruction workwrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingparent-subsidiary relationship
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

43 East 74th St. Associates v. Marceca (In Re Marceca)

The Chapter 7 debtor, Robert K. Marceca, moved to dismiss an adversary proceeding filed by plaintiffs Benjamin S. Richman, Arthur Shulman, and Irving Barr. The plaintiffs sought to declare claims nondischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(4). The first claim alleged Marceca embezzled partnership funds from 43 East 74th St. Associates. The second claim, by Richman, accused Marceca of embezzling real estate investment commissions. The debtor argued that a partner cannot embezzle partnership property and that the second claim was unenforceable due to the statute of frauds. The court denied the motion to dismiss both claims, affirming that New York partnership law establishes a fiduciary relationship allowing for nondischargeable claims for defalcation and that the statute of frauds is an affirmative defense, not a basis for dismissal under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6).

BankruptcyNondischargeabilityEmbezzlementDefalcationFiduciary DutyPartnership LawStatute of FraudsMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Adversary Proceeding
References
12
Case No. claim No. 1, claim No. 2
Regular Panel Decision

Colley v. Endicott Johnson Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning two claims. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1985, and that claim was closed in 1986. In 2004, while working in Ohio for MCS Carriers, the claimant sustained another back injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled that the 1985 claim was barred from reopening by Workers’ Compensation Law § 123 and that New York lacked subject matter jurisdiction over the 2004 claim. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed these rulings, leading to this appeal. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, confirming the applicability of § 123 to the 1985 claim due to lapsed statutory limits and concluding that insufficient significant contacts existed to confer New York jurisdiction over the 2004 out-of-state injury.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionStatute of LimitationsReopening ClaimOut-of-state InjurySignificant ContactsAppellate ReviewBack InjuryTruck DriverNew York Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stennett v. Moveway Transfer & Storage, Inc.

This appellate decision addresses a plaintiff's appeal regarding the dismissal of several labor law claims. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of a statutory cause of action under Labor Law § 231, concluding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is a prerequisite for such a claim. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the common-law breach of contract claim, asserting that employees can act as third-party beneficiaries to recover unpaid prevailing wages. Additionally, the court reinstated the claim for unpaid overtime wages under the Minimum Wage Act (Labor Law article 19), clarifying that this cause of action is independent of Labor Law § 231 and does not require prior administrative determination. The decision thus outlines the distinct requirements and remedies available for different types of wage claims under New York Labor Law.

CPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissPrevailing WageLabor Law § 231Private Right of ActionAdministrative ExhaustionBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryMinimum Wage ActLabor Law Article 19
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1998

Higgins v. 1790 Broadway Associates

Plaintiff, an employee of O & P Management Corp., suffered injuries while attempting to repair a freight elevator using a defective ladder. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment, dismissing claims against all defendants: Central Elevator, 1790 Broadway Associates, John Phufas, and O & P Management. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims against Central Elevator and the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against 1790 Broadway Associates and Phufas. However, it denied the cross-motion by 1790 Broadway Associates and John Phufas to dismiss claims of common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200, reinstating these claims. The court reasoned that it was foreseeable a worker might use the defective ladder, which constituted a dangerous condition, and that the owners failed to demonstrate lack of notice regarding this unsafe condition.

Elevator AccidentDefective LadderCommon-Law NegligenceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentActual NoticeConstructive NoticeWorkplace Safety
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 24,038 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