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

Sonbuchner v. Sonbuchner

Justice Saxe dissents in part from the majority's decision regarding a child custody determination, while agreeing with the remand for a new child support award. The dissent argues that the pro se plaintiff was fundamentally denied due process by not receiving sufficient access to an 84-page court-appointed psychologist's report on custody prior to trial. This lack of access severely hindered the plaintiff's ability to effectively cross-examine the expert. Justice Saxe advocates for a new custody trial before a different judge to rectify this procedural unfairness, citing recommendations from the New York State Matrimonial Commission on providing access to such reports for pro se litigants.

Child custodyChild supportPro se litigant rightsDue processExpert witness reportsForensic psychologyCross-examinationMatrimonial lawJudicial discretionNew York Family Law
References
1
Case No. PD-1050-14
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 2015

Martin, Peter James

Peter James Martin, proceeding pro-se, filed a motion for rehearing following the denial of his petition for discretionary review by the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals on February 4, 2015. Martin was convicted of aggravated assault against a public servant, evading arrest, altering/destroying evidence, and possession of a controlled substance. His motion primarily argues for legally insufficient evidence of intent, knowledge, and causation regarding the aggravated assault charge, citing the deputy's alleged actions of running into the path of Martin's car, thus causing the 'threat' himself. Additionally, Martin contends that his Sixth Amendment rights were violated due to issues with chosen counsel and the unconstitutional abortion of a plea bargain process, where a judge's comments allegedly coerced him into waiving his right to chosen counsel and rejecting a 35-year plea offer unknowingly. The motion also details procedural issues regarding the confiscation of his legal documents by prison officials, which he claims hindered his ability to file a meritorious petition.

Criminal LawAggravated Assault Public ServantEvading ArrestLegal Insufficiency EvidenceConcurrent CausationRight to CounselPlea BargainIneffective Assistance of CounselDue ProcessFourth Amendment
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martin-Trigona v. D'Amato & Lynch

Plaintiff Martin-Trigona filed a suit against attorneys D’Amato & Lynch and Richard Belford under RICO statutes, the Fifth Amendment, and state law, alleging misconduct for providing limited legal assistance to pro se defendants in a state court action. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing their actions did not constitute fraud or a pattern of racketeering. The court found that the limited assistance provided by the attorneys to the pro se litigants was proper and did not violate mail fraud, wire fraud, or the Hobbs Act. Furthermore, the court determined that the defendants' actions were private and did not involve governmental action, thus not violating the Fifth Amendment. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed all of the plaintiff's federal and pendent state law claims.

RICOSummary JudgmentPro Se AssistanceMail FraudWire FraudHobbs ActFifth AmendmentDue ProcessPendent ClaimsLegal Ethics
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shafa v. Montgomery Ward & Co.

The plaintiff, proceeding pro se, brought an employment discrimination action against Montgomery Ward Co., Inc. under Title VII, alleging termination based on national origin. The case was tried before an advisory jury, which found that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case of unlawful discrimination. The Court concurred, concluding that the plaintiff's termination was due to insubordination and unapproved absence, not discriminatory intent. Consequently, the Court dismissed the action with prejudice, denying all requests for relief, including the defendant's conditional motion for attorney's fees.

employment discriminationTitle VIIterminationpro se litigationinsubordinationnational origin discriminationadvisory juryprima facie caseSecond CircuitMcDonnell Douglas framework
References
12
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Delgado v. Triborough Bridge & Tunnel Authority

Pro se plaintiff Shirley Delgado initiated this action against her employer, the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority (TBTA), alleging unlawful discrimination and retaliation based on race, gender, national origin, and disability. Her claims, brought under Title VII, ADA, and FMLA, stemmed from alleged increased workload, lack of promotion, delayed accommodation for a medical condition, and rescinded vacation time. The New York State Division of Human Rights and EEOC had previously found no probable cause. The District Court granted TBTA's motion to dismiss, concluding that Delgado failed to plead sufficient facts to demonstrate an adverse employment action, a qualifying disability under the ADA, or a causal connection for retaliation claims. The Court, acknowledging Delgado's pro se status, allowed her thirty days to file an amended complaint.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIIADAFMLAMotion to DismissPro SeHostile Work EnvironmentDisability DiscriminationRacial Discrimination
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Humphrey v. RAV Investigative & Security Services Ltd.

Aaron S. Humphrey, a pro se plaintiff, initiated this action against RAV Investigative & Security Services Ltd., RAV Trade Shows Inc., Ron Allen, and other unnamed entities, alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law. Humphrey, a former security guard for RAV, contended that RAV frequently issued bouncing paychecks, failed to remit child support and union dues deductions, and did not forward withheld taxes to relevant authorities, resulting in minimum wage and overtime violations. Additionally, he claimed retaliatory termination subsequent to reporting RAV to the Department of Labor. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss Humphrey's individual claims, determining that there were sufficient factual allegations to support claims for overtime, spread-of-hours, minimum wage, unlawful deductions, and FLSA retaliation. However, the court granted the defendants' motion to strike the class and collective action allegations due to Humphrey's pro se status.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawWage and Hour ViolationsMinimum WageOvertime PayRetaliatory TerminationUnlawful DeductionsBounced PaychecksChild Support DeductionsUnion Dues
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 2002

Dionisiou v. United Painting Contracting, Inc.

In an action to recover damages for personal injuries, defendant Pro-Mo-Pro appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County. The Supreme Court had denied Pro-Mo-Pro's motion to vacate a prior order that struck its Workers’ Compensation Law defense and had also denied summary judgment. The appellate court modified the order, ruling that the Supreme Court had improvidently exercised its discretion by not vacating the order that struck Pro-Mo-Pro's Workers’ Compensation Law defense. Consequently, the defense was reinstated. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, citing a triable issue of fact regarding whether the injured plaintiff was Pro-Mo-Pro's special employee.

Personal InjuryDamagesAppealWorkers' Compensation LawDefense ReinstatementSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeVacatur of OrderAppellate ProcedureMotion Practice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Houston v. Teamsters Local 210

Pro se plaintiffs, including Houston, filed a lawsuit against an ERISA-regulated fund seeking severance pay. They argued they were entitled to benefits because their termination occurred 'within one year of' their employer ceasing operations, interpreting the phrase to include the period before cessation. The defendants contended this phrase referred only to the period after cessation and also argued that all plaintiffs, except Houston, failed to exhaust administrative remedies. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants, ruling that the non-Houston plaintiffs failed to exhaust remedies. For Houston's claim, the court found the plan language unambiguously supported the defendants' prospective interpretation of the 'within one year of' clause. Alternatively, even if ambiguous, the plan granted the defendants discretionary authority, and their consistent interpretation was deemed rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

ERISA BenefitsSeverance Pay DisputePlan InterpretationSummary Plan Description (SPD)Administrative ExhaustionArbitrary and Capricious StandardDiscretionary AuthorityEmployer CessationPro Se LitigantsMotion for Summary Judgment
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Lehr Construction Corp.

Plaintiff was injured at a construction site when, while working, he was struck in the back by an uninstalled door frame. He commenced an action against Wood-Pro, the company hired to install the door frames, and Summerville, the manufacturer of the door frame. The jury found no negligence on the part of Wood-Pro. The court also properly granted Summerville’s motion to dismiss the action as against it, as there was no evidence of negligence or violation of duty. Plaintiff’s claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) against both defendants were also found unavailing, as neither had authority to supervise or control the plaintiff’s work, and they were not owners or general contractors.

Construction InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityLabor LawAppellate ReviewJury VerdictComparative FaultMotion to DismissStatutory DutyContractual Duty
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 10,772 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