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. 2023 NY Slip Op 00103 [212 AD3d 644]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2023

Pecora v. Fitness Intl., LLC

Michael Pecora appealed from an order granting summary judgment to Fitness International, LLC, in a personal injury action. Pecora alleged he contracted infections, including MRSA, from using a sauna at the defendant's health club. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the defendants demonstrated the plaintiff could not prove the pathogen originated at their facility, noting MRSA's common transmission, regular cleaning, and lack of prior complaints. The plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact, leading to the affirmation of the dismissal.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityMRSAHealth ClubProximate CauseSpeculationDangerous ConditionInfectious DiseaseAppellate Review
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brennan v. Bally Total Fitness

Kathryn Brennan filed a civil rights action against her former employer, Bally Total Fitness Corp., alleging sexual harassment under Title VII and disability discrimination under the ADA. Bally moved to dismiss the complaint as untimely and to compel arbitration based on its Employee Dispute Resolution Procedure (EDRP). The court denied Bally's motion to dismiss the Title VII claim, applying the 'continuing-violation exception' due to Brennan's allegations of ongoing harassment. The court also denied Bally's motion to compel arbitration, finding Bally's unilateral modifications to the EDRP invalid and raising questions of unconscionability regarding the original EDRP. The case is remanded for jurisdictional discovery and a possible hearing to determine the validity of the arbitration agreement.

Civil RightsSexual HarassmentDisability DiscriminationTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Arbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Motion to DismissMotion to Compel ArbitrationContinuing Violation Exception
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Tru-Fit Manufacturing Co.

Plaintiff, an employee of TFM Industries, was injured in a parking lot in New Jersey and received workers' compensation benefits under New Jersey law. She subsequently filed a common-law tort action against Tru-Fit Manufacturing Co., Inc., a corporation that had merged into TFM in 1981, alleging negligent work in the parking lot. The IAS court initially denied TFM's motion to dismiss, which was based on the exclusivity of workers' compensation as a remedy. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting the motion to dismiss the complaint against Tru-Fit Manufacturing Co., Inc. The court reasoned that New Jersey law should apply, which establishes workers' compensation as the exclusive remedy, and rejected the application of the 'Billy' exception, as the alleged liability was not deemed separate from TFM's role as an employer and operator of the business premises.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedyNew Jersey LawCommon-Law TortCorporate LiabilityPremises LiabilityMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalEmployer Immunity
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Case No. ADJ9876999, ADJ9876980
Regular
Jul 20, 2016

ROLANDO RENTERIA vs. CITY OF DOWNEY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the City of Downey's petition for reconsideration. The Board upheld the finding that police officer Rolando Renteria sustained a compensable injury to his right thumb while weightlifting at home. This was because the WCJ found the off-duty exercise to be a reasonable expectancy of employment, citing Renteria's role as a breacher on the entry team and participation in strength-based training and fitness tests. The Board deferred to the WCJ's credibility findings regarding Renteria's belief that his employer expected such fitness maintenance.

Rolando RenteriaCity of DowneyADJ9876999ADJ9876980Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderAOE/COEright thumb injuryoff-duty weightliftingLabor Code section 3600(a)(9)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York

Jose Cruz, a bus operator for the New York City Transit Authority (TA), was found to have color-blindness during a routine physical examination. A physician recommended a road test to assess his fitness, but the TA refused, asserting the test was non-medical and insufficient to evaluate his ability to meet required vision standards under Vehicle and Traffic Law and NYCRR regulations. Subsequently, the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100 (TWU) filed a grievance on Cruz's behalf, which the TA denied, leading to a request for binding arbitration. The TA then initiated a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable. The Supreme Court denied the TA's petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision that was ultimately affirmed by the appellate court, which found no statutory or public policy prohibitions against arbitrating the dispute under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementbus operatorcolor-blindnessvision requirementsroad testpublic sectorarbitrabilitygrievanceappellate decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

D'Agostino v. LA Fitness International, LLC

Maria D’Agostino (Plaintiff) sued LA Fitness and several related entities and an individual (Defendants) for age and gender discrimination, and retaliation, under the New York State Human Rights Law, Title VII, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act. Plaintiff, a Training General Manager, alleged discriminatory remarks by her supervisor Michael Sharp and preferential treatment for younger male counterparts. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Plaintiff was demoted due to poor sales performance and staffing issues, not discrimination. The court granted Defendants' motion, finding Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that the legitimate non-discriminatory reasons for her demotion were pretextual, and also failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation or a hostile work environment.

Age DiscriminationGender DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentHostile Work EnvironmentMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkPrima Facie CasePretextSales PerformanceEmployee Demotion
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 573 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