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

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2011

In re Claim of Williams

Claimant, a maintenance worker, was disqualified from unemployment insurance benefits after voluntarily leaving his employment early during a snowstorm without authorization. Despite being warned by his supervisor that leaving would constitute job abandonment, he departed and was subsequently terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his benefits application, finding he lacked good cause for leaving. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court noting that unauthorized early departure in disregard of a supervisor's directive can be construed as job abandonment. The conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue, which the Board was entitled to resolve.

Unemployment BenefitsVoluntary DepartureGood CauseJob AbandonmentSupervisory DirectiveCredibility IssueAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceSnowstormTermination
References
4
Case No. ADJ12394877
Regular
Dec 14, 2020

SABINA RAMOS vs. GLOBAL FOOD SERVICES, FEDERAL INSURANCE

The applicant was injured and subsequently offered modified work within her restrictions, which she initially performed. However, the applicant then abandoned her employment after suitable modified work was provided by the employer. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the applicant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that she was not entitled to temporary disability indemnity due to job abandonment. This denial is based on legal precedent that an employee may be estopped from claiming temporary disability for periods where they refuse or abandon suitable modified work without good cause.

Modified workAbandonment of workTemporary disability indemnityPetition for reconsiderationCredibility determinationsPrimary treating physicianWork restrictionsLabor Code section 4062EstoppelOdd lot doctrine
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 2008

In re Jacob WW.

This appeal concerns the termination of a mother's parental rights due to abandonment of her three children. The children were placed in foster care, and despite attempts by a caseworker to facilitate contact, the mother failed to visit or communicate with her children or the agency for the statutory six-month period. Although the mother's mother arranged a few brief family gatherings, the appellate court affirmed the Family Court's finding that these sporadic contacts were insufficient to prevent a finding of abandonment. The court also noted the children's positive adjustment to foster care and the foster parents' desire to adopt, supporting the termination of parental rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentFoster Care PlacementFamily Court AppealSchuyler CountySocial Services Law § 384-bVisitation RightsDue DiligenceClear and Convincing EvidenceAppellate Division
References
7
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 08137
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 2020

Matter of Dakota W. (Kimberly X.)

The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court of Broome County's order terminating the parental rights of Kimberly X. and Chad W. for abandoning their three children. The parents appealed, citing due process violations due to their absence from the fact-finding hearing and alleged ineffective assistance of counsel. The court found that the parents voluntarily absented themselves, and their legal representation was adequate. Furthermore, the court concluded that clear and convincing evidence supported the finding of abandonment, as the parents failed to visit or communicate with their children or the petitioning agency during the six-month statutory period. Therefore, the Family Court's decision to transfer guardianship and custody to the Broome County Department of Social Services was upheld.

abandonmentparental rights terminationdue processfoster carefact-finding hearingappellate reviewsocial services lawchildren's rightsclear and convincing evidencevisitation rights
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Uto v. Job Site Services Inc.

Plaintiffs Paulino Uto, Jose Edwin Lopez, and Jose Aas, former employees of Job Site Services Inc. (JSS), filed a collective action against JSS and its owner, John O'Shea. They allege violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, claiming unpaid overtime, partial payment for hours worked, and unpaid minimum wage. The plaintiffs sought a protective order against defendants' discovery requests for social security numbers and income tax returns, arguing irrelevance and potential prejudice regarding their immigration status. Defendants contended the information was necessary for an "unclean hands" defense, implying the plaintiffs were involved in a tax evasion scheme. The court granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that immigration status and social security numbers are generally undiscoverable in FLSA cases due to irrelevance and the risk of intimidation or deportation. Furthermore, the court determined that tax returns were not relevant and lacked a compelling need for disclosure, and the "unclean hands" defense was inapplicable as the plaintiffs' claims were legal, not equitable.

Protective OrderDiscovery DisputeImmigration StatusFair Labor Standards ActFLSANew York Labor LawUnclean Hands DefenseSocial Security NumbersIncome Tax ReturnsWage and Hour
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2001

CSEA Local 1000 v. County of Dutchess

The case involves an Article 78 proceeding challenging the County of Dutchess's reclassification of Social Welfare Worker II job duties and seeking an injunction against out-of-title work. The Supreme Court, Dutchess County, granted the petition, and this judgment was affirmed on appeal. The court found that the reclassification was not final and binding due to the County's failure to notify affected employees, thus precluding a statute of limitations defense. Additionally, it was determined that the petitioner union had exhausted its contractual remedies, making the proceeding ripe for judicial review.

CPLR Article 78Job ReclassificationOut-of-title WorkStatute of LimitationsExhaustion of RemediesPublic Sector UnionAppellate ReviewDutchess CountyMunicipal LawAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 1990

In re Siami D.

The Family Court in New York County terminated the parental rights of the respondent on September 4, 1990, finding that she had abandoned her children. This determination was based on clear and convincing evidence that the respondent failed to communicate with the children for at least six months prior to the petition's filing. The court held that the respondent's incarceration during this period did not excuse her failure to establish contact through a third party or by letter. The Family Court's decision, which credited the agency case record over the respondent's testimony regarding attempts to contact the petitioner, was unanimously affirmed on appeal without costs.

Parental Rights TerminationChild AbandonmentFamily LawAppellate AffirmationIncarcerationCommunication with ChildClear and Convincing EvidenceAgency RecordJudicial CredibilityFamily Court Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Johnson v. Birds Eye Frozen Foods

This case involves an appeal by an employer and its insurance carrier against a decision that awarded death benefits to a claimant widow. The central issue was whether the claimant widow had abandoned the decedent, which would disqualify her from receiving benefits under the Workmen’s Compensation Law. The appellants attempted to introduce a Federal rule for abandonment, but the court upheld the board's finding that the decedent had abandoned the claimant, and her subsequent illicit relationship was not considered an abandonment on her part under the Domestic Relations Law. Citing previous precedent, the court affirmed the original decision, holding that the board was warranted in finding no abandonment by the claimant.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath BenefitsSpousal AbandonmentSurvivor BenefitsDomestic Relations LawFederal Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActIllicit RelationshipJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionEligibility Criteria
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,138 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