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

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Power v. Crown Controls Corp.

Plaintiff James Power was severely injured when a forklift manufactured by defendant Crown Controls Corporation tipped over during his employment. Power admitted he had not read the operator's warning sign or manual, which contained warnings against carrying passengers and elevating without a safety platform. Crown moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Power's failure to read the warnings negated proximate causation for his claim of inadequate warning. The court acknowledged that generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning can rebut the presumption of causation, especially in non-workplace contexts. However, the court denied summary judgment, reasoning that in a workplace setting, a proper warning might have reached the plaintiff through his employer's officials or fellow workers, thus establishing a potential for proximate causation.

Products LiabilityForklift AccidentWarning LabelProximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNegligenceDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2007

Ribaudo v. Delaney Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, while riding his bicycle, was injured after he rode into a wet flowable fill at a sewer renovation construction site in the Town of Queensbury, despite the presence of warning signs and barriers. He subsequently sued Delaney Construction Corporation and the Town of Queensbury, alleging negligent failure to erect proper barriers and adequately warn of dangerous road conditions. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Supreme Court denied the motion, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the sufficiency of warnings. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide substantive evidence to challenge the adequacy of the warning signs and barricades, and noting his violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law by ignoring the signs. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed.

Bicycle AccidentConstruction SiteSinkholeWarning SignsTraffic Control DevicesSummary JudgmentNegligenceProximate CauseContributory NegligenceVehicle and Traffic Law
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01829 [159 AD3d 1457]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2018

Rickicki v. Borden Chem.

The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, heard an appeal concerning two actions, Rickicki v Borden Chemical and Crowley v C-E Minerals, Inc., both involving claims for damages due to silicosis from silica dust exposure at Dexter Corporation. The core legal dispute centered on the applicability of the 'sophisticated intermediary doctrine,' which asserts that product manufacturers have no duty to warn ultimate users if an informed intermediary, like an employer, is aware of the product's dangers. Reversing the Supreme Court's grant of summary judgment for the defendants, the Appellate Division declined to recognize this doctrine under the specific facts of this case. Consequently, the court reinstated negligence and products liability causes of action based on failure to warn, along with loss of consortium claims, against the defendant silica manufacturers. The decision emphasized that whether adequate warnings were provided to the injured workers and if failure to warn was a proximate cause remained triable issues of fact.

Sophisticated Intermediary DoctrineFailure to WarnProducts LiabilityNegligenceSilica Dust ExposureSilicosisProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer Liability
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finnan v. LF Rothschild & Co., Inc.

This case involves a class action complaint filed by former employees of L.F. Rothschild & Co. Incorporated, alleging violations of the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) for failure to provide 60-days notice prior to mass terminations in March 1989. Defendant Rothschild moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing the WARN Act did not apply to actions prior to 60 days post-effective date, and to strike punitive damages. The court denied Rothschild's motion to dismiss, ruling that WARN Act liability attached to closings/layoffs occurring after the February 4, 1989 effective date, even if notice would have been required earlier. However, the court granted the motion to strike punitive damages, finding the WARN Act's specified remedies to be exclusive. Finally, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for class certification, deeming the requirements of F.R.Civ.P. Rule 23 to be met.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingNotice RequirementPunitive DamagesClass ActionStatutory InterpretationExclusive RemediesFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23Employment Law
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04796
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2024

U.S. Bank N.A. v. DCCA, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order and a money judgment in a mortgage foreclosure action. The plaintiff Anderson Hill Road Capital, LLC, appeals a decision by the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which found it liable for expenditures related to alleged violations of the New York State Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) incurred by temporary receiver Kirby D. Payne. The underlying issue stemmed from the abrupt closure of the Doral Arrowwood Resort and Hotel, owned by DCCA, LLC, where a temporary receiver was appointed to manage operations. The receiver requested funding to continue operations, which was initially provided by the Trustee (U.S. Bank National Association) but later denied by Anderson Hill Road Capital, LLC, after it purchased the note. This led to the issuance of WARN Act notices to employees due to the impending closure. The Supreme Court held Anderson Capital jointly and severally liable for the WARN Act violation costs. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal from the order as it was superseded by the money judgment and affirmed the money judgment, finding that special circumstances existed to hold Anderson Capital liable for the receiver's expenses, including the WARN Act sum, given its predecessor's (the Trustee's) involvement and benefit from the receivership.

Mortgage ForeclosureTemporary ReceiverWARN ActReceiver ExpensesJoint and Several LiabilityAppellate ReviewMoney JudgmentProperty ManagementSpecial ServicerCommercial Mortgage-Backed Security
References
0
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 00660 [168 AD3d 1339]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

Matter of LeSane (Commissioner of Labor)

Robert M. LeSane, a maintenance worker, was terminated from his employment due to chronic tardiness, despite receiving multiple warnings, including a final written warning. He subsequently filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which was denied on the grounds of misconduct. This decision was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and, later, by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. LeSane appealed the Board's decision, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the ruling, concluding that continued tardiness after prior warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment insurance benefitsmisconducttardinessprior warningssubstantial evidenceAppellate Divisionjudicial reviewemployer policytermination of employmentadministrative law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Passante v. Agway Consumer Products, Inc.

Samuel Passante was injured while operating a dock leveler at his workplace, leading him and his wife to sue his employer, the manufacturer (Rite-Hite), and the seller (Mullen) for defective design and failure to warn. The Supreme Court denied Mullen's summary judgment motion, but the Appellate Division reversed, dismissing the complaint. The Court of Appeals reviewed the Appellate Division's order, modifying it to reinstate the claims for defective design and failure to warn. The court found triable issues of fact concerning whether the dock leveler was unreasonably dangerous without an optional trailer restraint system and the adequacy of existing warnings regarding its use.

Product LiabilityNegligenceDefective DesignFailure to WarnSummary JudgmentDock LevelerIndustrial AccidentOptional Safety FeatureRisk-Utility AssessmentIndustrial Equipment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 24, 2013

Conn v. Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP (In re Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP)

This case involves Vittoria Conn, a former employee of Dewey & LeBoeuf LLP, who initiated a putative class action adversary proceeding. She alleged violations of the federal, New York, and California WARN Acts due to mass layoffs without proper advance notice. Dewey & LeBoeuf, the Debtor, filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that these claims should be processed through the claims allowance system and that the 'liquidating fiduciary principle' exempted them from WARN Act obligations. The Court denied the Debtor's motion to dismiss, concluding that WARN Act claims, which seek equitable relief, are appropriately brought in an adversary proceeding. The Court postponed decisions on class certification and the administrative or priority status of the claims, noting these issues are to be resolved in the main bankruptcy case.

WARN ActNY WARN ActCAL WARN ActClass ActionAdversary ProceedingBankruptcyMotion to DismissEquitable ReliefLiquidating Fiduciary PrincipleEmployee Layoffs
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Caravan Transportation, Inc.

Plaintiff Angel Martinez filed an action against Caravan Transportation, Inc., Caravan Transit, Inc., and Transport Workers Union, Local 100, alleging violations of ERISA, WARN, LMRA, and RICO. Martinez later withdrew his RICO and most ERISA claims. The defendants sought summary judgment on the remaining LMRA and WARN claims. The court granted summary judgment, determining that Martinez's LMRA claims were barred by the statute of limitations and that he failed to demonstrate the corporate defendants constituted separate entities, which was crucial for his 'follow the work' theory. Furthermore, the court dismissed the WARN claim, finding that Martinez and other employees did not suffer an 'employment loss' as defined by the act, given their prompt re-employment. Requests for attorney's fees from both sides were denied.

Employment LawLabor RelationsERISAWARN ActLMRARICOSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsDuty of Fair RepresentationSingle Employer Doctrine
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 410 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