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

Psihoyos v. National Geographic Society

This case concerns a copyright infringement dispute brought by Louis Psihoyos against The National Geographic Society (NGS). Psihoyos alleged that NGS infringed copyrights in his photograph of a dinosaur fossil and an accompanying illustration by publishing similar works in its magazine. NGS moved for summary judgment, arguing the similarities were due to unprotectible elements like common subject matter, or covered by doctrines such as merger and scenes a faire. The court analyzed the substantial similarity of the photographs, illustrations, and overall layout, finding that protectible elements were not substantially similar. Ultimately, the court granted NGS's motion for summary judgment and denied Psihoyos's cross-motion.

Copyright InfringementPhotographyIllustrationSummary JudgmentSubstantial SimilarityMerger DoctrineScenes A FaireIntellectual PropertyArtistic WorksDinosaur Fossil
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pedone v. B & B Equipment Co.

In a personal injury action, the plaintiff sued B & B Equipment Co., Inc., alleging a defective backhoe caused injury. A jury found B & B negligent but not the proximate cause. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, set aside this verdict and granted a new trial on causation. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the jury's verdict, finding it supported by a fair interpretation of the evidence, particularly given conflicting testimony about how the accident occurred and the jury's role in assessing witness credibility. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion was denied, and the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryNegligenceProximate CauseJury VerdictAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceCredibility AssessmentBackhoe AccidentCausationCPLR 4404
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03320 [42 NY3d 708]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2024

People v. Wright

Freddie T. Wright appealed his conviction, challenging the denial of his Batson challenge to the People's peremptory strikes on prospective jurors and his motion to suppress identification testimony. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the lower courts' decisions, finding record support for the race-neutral reasons provided for the strikes. The Court also concluded that the showup identification procedure used by the police was not unduly suggestive given its close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime. The dissent raised concerns regarding the trial court's Batson analysis and the suggestiveness of the identification procedures.

Batson challengeperemptory strikesjury selectionracial discriminationshowup identificationunduly suggestivedue processcriminal procedureappellate reviewtrial court discretion
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 1998

People v. Butler

The defendant was convicted of robbery in the second degree for participating in the theft of personal items from a woman in Albany. The defendant appealed the judgment, challenging two showup identifications as unduly suggestive and claiming the victim's intoxication rendered the identification procedure suggestive. The court found that the showup identifications were conducted in close geographic and temporal proximity to the crime and were not suggestive. Furthermore, the court rejected the claim that the victim's intoxication made the procedure unduly suggestive, noting it was a point for cross-examination at trial. The court also dismissed the defendant's claim regarding being unadvised of grand jury proceedings, stating the motion was untimely and the People had satisfied their burden by timely notifying the defendant's attorney. The judgment of conviction was affirmed.

RobberySecond Degree RobberyShowup IdentificationGrand Jury ProceedingsAdmissibility of EvidenceDue ProcessCriminal Procedure LawAlbanyAppealWitness Identification
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Schulz

Judge Rosenblatt dissents in part from the Court's decision upholding the denial of a defendant's CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion without a hearing. The dissent argues for a hearing due to the high possibility of the defendant's actual innocence. Key evidence includes the primary victim, Ruiz, submitting a post-trial affidavit stating she is 90% certain the robber was another individual, Guilfoyle, whose photograph was disallowed at trial. The dissent highlights the temporal and geographical proximity, and similar modus operandi of Guilfoyle's other crimes, contrasting with the majority's view of 'remoteness'. Rosenblatt asserts that Ruiz's affidavit, especially following a 'borderline ruling' on the photograph, is too significant to dismiss summarily, and a hearing could provide an 'additional measure of truth' and serve the 'higher ends of justice'.

Criminal LawPost-Conviction ReliefActual InnocenceCPL 440.10 MotionWitness IdentificationEvidentiary RulingDissenting OpinionModus OperandiAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ewh v. Monarch Wine Co.

This case involves a class action lawsuit filed by a female employee against Monarch Wine Co., Inc. and Distillery, Rectifying, Wine and Allied Workers Union, Local 1, alleging sex discrimination under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. The plaintiff claims Monarch maintains discriminatory classification and seniority systems leading to layoffs of females, lack of supervisory positions for women, and assignment to lower-paying jobs, while the Union failed to represent its female members fairly. The plaintiff sought declaratory judgment, injunctive relief, and monetary damages. The court addressed the plaintiff's motion for class action certification under Rule 23(e)(1), F.R.Civ.P. The defendants opposed certification, citing insufficient numerosity and antagonistic interests among prospective class members. The court, focusing on the numerosity requirement, determined that with 34 to 50 potential class members residing in close geographical proximity, joinder was not impracticable, denying the motion for class action certification.

Class actionSex discriminationTitle VIICivil Rights ActLayoffsSeniority systemsEmployment discriminationUnion representationNumerosity requirementImpracticability of joinder
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Piotrowski v. McGuire Manor, Inc.

Whalen, J., in this dissenting opinion, argues against the majority's decision to reverse a judgment and order a new trial. The dissent contends that the defendant failed to preserve its objection to the jury charge concerning sole proximate cause, specifically regarding the recalcitrant worker defense or an expanded sole proximate cause instruction. Whalen emphasizes that discussions about the verdict sheet do not preserve objections to jury instructions, citing CPLR 4110-b and established case law. Furthermore, the dissenting judge asserts that the jury charge provided (PJI 2:217) was adequate for the sole proximate cause defense and allowed the jury to consider whether the plaintiff's actions were the only substantial factor in causing the injury. The jury's subsequent apportionment of 60% responsibility to the plaintiff also indicated that they did not find the plaintiff to be the sole proximate cause of the accident. Therefore, Whalen would affirm the original judgment, concluding that the issue of the jury charge was not preserved for review.

Jury ChargeSole Proximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerCPLR 4110-bAppellate ReviewPreservation of ErrorVerdict SheetEvidentiary RulingLabor LawDissenting Opinion
References
11
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02471 [171 AD3d 426]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2019

Mora v. Wythe & Kent Realty LLC

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order granting plaintiff Julian Mora partial summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The plaintiff was injured when unsecured scaffold planks tipped. The court found that the unsecured planks were a proximate cause of the injury, rejecting the defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause of his accident or that a recalcitrant worker defense applied. The decision emphasized that a statutory violation serving as a proximate cause precludes the plaintiff from being solely to blame.

Scaffold AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentLiabilityProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerAppellate DecisionConstruction SafetyWorker InjuryUnsecured Equipment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ortiz v. M.J. Peterson Marina Homes Corp.

The court unanimously affirmed an order without costs, referencing the decision made by Supreme Court, Francis, J. The affirming court disagreed with the original finding concerning questions of fact related to proximate cause. The defendants failed to address the proximate cause issue in response to the plaintiffs' cross-appeal, leading to the conclusion that a Labor Law § 240 violation was a proximate cause of the plaintiffs' decedent's fall. However, the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on their Labor Law § 240 claim was properly denied due to factual questions concerning a potential bar by the Workers’ Compensation Law.

Labor Law § 240Proximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall AccidentWrongful Death
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2011

Kerrigan v. TDX Construction Corp.

This case involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants and dismissing the complaint regarding a fatal construction accident. A worker died after being pinned by a boom lift during a lifting operation. The lower court found the decedent's conduct was the sole proximate cause of the accident. On appeal, the plaintiff (decedent's wife) argued that the lack of a licensed rigger was also a proximate cause, citing Administrative Code provisions. The Appellate Division affirmed, concluding that an exemption in the Administrative Code applied, thus no licensed rigger was required, and the plaintiff failed to establish a breach of Labor Law duties or overcome the sole proximate cause defense.

Construction AccidentFatal InjurySummary JudgmentProximate CauseLabor LawAdministrative CodeLicensed RiggerCrane OperationRiggingWorker Supervision
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 722 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