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

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

L&L Painting Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Board

L&L and Odyssey, contractors for lead-based paint removal on the Queensboro Bridge, disputed a contract drawing's interpretation with the Department of Transportation (DOT) concerning scaffolding clearance. Petitioners sought additional compensation after DOT rejected their proposed platform design, claiming a latent ambiguity in the contract. The Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB) denied their claim, finding a patent ambiguity requiring pre-bid clarification. The Supreme Court upheld CDRB's decision, and this appellate court affirmed, concluding that the ambiguity was indeed patent, contrasting 'all roadways' in the note with the drawing's specific references. A dissenting opinion argued against this, stating an engineer would find no ambiguity.

Contract DisputePublic Works ContractQueensboro BridgeConstruction LawContract InterpretationAmbiguityPatent AmbiguityLatent AmbiguityCPLR Article 78Administrative Law
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01159
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Matter of American Bridge Co. v. Contract Dispute Resolution Bd. of the City of N.Y.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a lower court's decision denying American Bridge Company's (AB) petition to annul a determination by the Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). AB, a contractor for the New York City Department of Transportation (DOT), sought additional compensation for redesigning a protective shield on the Ed Koch Queensboro Bridge due to a discrepancy in vertical clearance measurements. However, the contract explicitly required AB to verify all existing dimensions, noting that DOT's figures were approximate. The court concluded that the contract unambiguously placed the responsibility for verifying dimensions on the contractor, and DOT had not made any bad faith misrepresentations, thereby affirming the denial of additional costs.

Contract DisputeConstruction ContractPublic WorksContract InterpretationRisk AllocationField MeasurementsBid DocumentsMisrepresentationAdministrative AppealArticle 78 Proceeding
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownstone Publishers, Inc. v. New York City Department of Buildings

The petitioner publishing company sought information from the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) in a computer tape format. The DOB offered the information in hard copy, citing no obligation to accommodate format preference, despite the petitioner's claim of substantial cost and difficulty in re-digitizing hard copies. The court, noting New York's Public Officers Law, emphasized the requirement for 'full' or 'maximum' access to records, which includes computer tapes or discs. It determined that providing over a million pages in hard copy would not constitute reasonable or maximum access. The court found no significant hardship for the DOB to provide the data electronically at the petitioner's expense. Consequently, the CPLR article 78 petition was granted, directing the DOB to provide the electronic records in computer tape format.

Freedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawInformation FormatElectronic RecordsHard CopyData AccessCPLR Article 78Government TransparencyCommercial InterestsNew York City Department of Buildings
References
2
Case No. ADJ10393903
Regular
Jan 07, 2019

LOS ANGELES UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration concerning a prior finding that required the applicant to seek medical treatment within the defendant's Medical Provider Network (MPN). Subsequently, the parties informed the WCAB that they had reached a resolution on the issue. Therefore, the WCAB has rescinded the prior Findings and Order and returned the matter to the WCJ for further proceedings, should the parties fail to finalize their resolution. This decision is not a final determination on the merits of the case.

Petition for ReconsiderationMedical Provider NetworkFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeRescindedReturned to WCJPermissibly ServicePermittingSedgwick Claims Management Services
References
0
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

Bleidner v. East 51st Street Development Co.

The case concerns a motion by Denise C. Bleidner to temporarily seal the settlement terms of a wrongful death action stemming from a 2008 tower crane collapse that killed Wayne R. Bleidner. Plaintiff, with support from defendants like East 51st Street, sought confidentiality to encourage resolution of other pending consolidated wrongful death cases without the Bleidner settlement setting a precedent. Crave Foods, Inc., and other plaintiffs in related actions, opposed the sealing, arguing it would impede their ability to make informed settlement decisions by obscuring insurance limits and settlement parameters. The court granted the temporary sealing order, balancing the public interest in open court records against the benefits of confidentiality in facilitating settlements in complex, multi-party litigation, noting the temporary nature of the sealing and the public policy favoring resolution of disputes through settlement.

Wrongful DeathCrane CollapseSettlement ConfidentialityCourt Records SealingPublic Access to CourtsMulti-party LitigationNew York Civil ProcedureGood Cause StandardInsurance DisclosureJudicial Discretion
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1994

United Transportation Union Local Unions 385 & 77 v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

This is a declaratory judgment action filed by the United Transportation Union and the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (collectively, 'the Union') against Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company ('Metro'). The Union challenges Metro's Rule P as a violation of 45 U.S.C. § 60 (Section 60) of the Federal Employer's Liability Act (FELA). Rule P restricts employees from divulging company information or giving statements about accidents to external parties without company authorization, which the Union argues prevents employees from voluntarily furnishing information to interested parties as protected by Section 60. Metro moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, contending the dispute is governed by the Railway Labor Act (RLA) and its exclusive grievance resolution procedures. The court denied Metro's motion, concluding that the Union's claim involves the interpretation of a federal statute (Section 60) and is therefore within federal jurisdiction, not preempted by the RLA.

Federal Employer's Liability ActFELARailway Labor ActRLASubject Matter JurisdictionDeclaratory JudgmentRule 12(b)Labor DisputesCollective Bargaining AgreementPreemption
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. Advanced Digital Information Corp.

Plaintiff Lucinda Allen filed suit against her former employer, Advanced Digital Information Corporation (ADIC), alleging sex-based hostile work environment, unequal pay under the Equal Pay Act (EPA), gender-based discrimination under Title VII and NYHRL, and retaliatory termination. ADIC moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court granted ADIC's motion regarding Allen's hostile work environment and EPA claims, finding the former lacked sufficient severity or pervasiveness and the latter had been abandoned. However, the court denied summary judgment on Allen's sex discrimination and retaliation claims, concluding that material questions of fact remained regarding ADIC's discriminatory intent and the causal link between Allen's protected activities and her termination. Consequently, the sex discrimination and retaliation claims will proceed to trial.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIEqual Pay ActNew York State Human Rights LawWorkplace HarassmentGender Discrimination
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. Midpoint Resolution Group, LLC

Plaintiff Sharon Miller sued Midpoint Resolution Group, LLC for multiple violations of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act (FDCPA), alleging false threats, unauthorized electronic debits, and threats of criminal prosecution. The case, initially referred for pre-trial matters, eventually proceeded to a bench trial to determine damages and attorney's fees. The court found Midpoint liable for repeated FDCPA violations and awarded Ms. Miller $500 in actual damages, $1,000 in statutory damages, $7,000 in attorney's fees, and $1,132.50 in costs, totaling $9,632.50. The court noted the plaintiff's limited success on her claim for substantial actual damages but emphasized the importance of a fee award sufficient to deter similar abusive debt collection practices in the future.

Fair Debt Collection Practices ActFDCPA ViolationsActual DamagesStatutory DamagesAttorney's FeesEmotional DistressDebt Collection AbuseUnauthorized DebitsThreats of Criminal ProsecutionMagistrate Judge Decision
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,380 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