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
Nov 10, 1982

American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. v. Roberts

ABC, a telecommunications company, was cited for violating Labor Law § 162(3) for not providing a second meal period to employees working specific shifts. ABC challenged the violation, arguing the law did not apply to their industry or skilled workers, and that their collective bargaining agreement waived or substantially complied with the requirement. The Industrial Board of Appeals affirmed the violation, but Special Term annulled this decision, concluding that employees could waive the statutory meal period benefit through their labor contracts. The current court's majority affirmed Special Term's judgment. A dissenting opinion argued that Labor Law § 162(3) is a public policy health measure designed for worker protection and therefore cannot be waived by private agreements or collective bargaining, emphasizing that the statute's 'every person' language applies broadly.

Labor LawMeal PeriodsWaiver of Statutory RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyTelecommunications IndustryIndustrial CommissionerIndustrial Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
19
Case No. 14-35443
Regular Panel Decision

In re Weidenbenner

The Debtors initiated a motion alleging that Wells Fargo violated the automatic stay by placing an administrative freeze on their bank accounts after they filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This freeze led to a bounced check and a $25 penalty. The court ruled that Wells Fargo's administrative freeze was indeed a willful violation of the automatic stay, rejecting the bank's arguments regarding compliance with turnover provisions or set-off rights. Furthermore, the court found that the Debtors had constitutional and statutory standing to pursue damages. As a result, the Debtors were awarded $25.00 in actual damages, along with costs and attorney's fees.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic StayStay ViolationAdministrative FreezeWells FargoChapter 7Damages AwardedWillful ViolationTurnover ProvisionDebtor Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lodato v. Greyhawk North America, LLC

The plaintiff, injured in a fall from a scaffold due to an electrical shock during a school renovation, sued Greyhawk North America, LLC, the construction manager, for violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff summary judgment on liability against Greyhawk and denied Greyhawk's cross-motion to dismiss. Greyhawk appealed, contending it was not a liable entity under the statutes. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that Greyhawk's contract with the school district bestowed sufficient supervisory control and authority over safety, making it a statutory agent of the owner and thus liable under the Labor Law.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawScaffolding FallElectrical InjurySummary JudgmentStatutory AgentConstruction Manager LiabilityAppellate DecisionWorkplace Safety
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 01, 2006

Woods v. Design Center, LLC

Deana Woods sustained injuries from a fall off a stepladder while painting, leading to a Labor Law and common-law negligence action. The Supreme Court granted her partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendant's cross-motion for dismissal of that claim. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the ladder's failure to provide proper protection constituted a statutory violation. It also dismissed the defendant's argument regarding plaintiff's sole proximate cause, deeming it conjecture and noting that a statutory violation prevents sole blame. Furthermore, the court found the defendant conceded plaintiff's status as a covered employee by not raising the issue previously.

Stepladder accidentLabor Law liabilitySummary judgmentProximate causationStatutory protectionWorkplace safetyAppellate affirmationMonroe County CourtNegligence actionEmployee coverage
References
15
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 01223
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 05, 2025

Matter of Poli v. Titov

Aleksey Titov appealed an order of commitment from the Family Court, Rockland County, which found him in violation of a temporary order of protection eight times and committed him to 48 months in jail. The order stemmed from a family offense proceeding initiated by Sara Poli after their relationship ended, following Titov's alleged attempt to enter her apartment with an axe. The Family Court imposed consecutive maximum penalties for each violation. Titov argued the aggregate term exceeded the statutory maximum for criminal contempt. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, holding that while the aggregate term exceeded the statutory limit, it is deemed equal to the legally authorized limit, thus requiring no modification, and found the sentence not excessive.

Family Court ActOrder of ProtectionCriminal ContemptSentencingConsecutive SentencesStatutory MaximumAppellate ReviewFamily OffenseDomestic ViolenceIncarceration
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Glod v. Morrill Press Division of Engraph, Inc.

James and Lisa Glod sued multiple defendants for injuries James sustained from chemical exposure at his workplace, alleging strict products liability, negligence, breach of contract, warranties, and statutory violations. The Supreme Court initially dismissed strict products liability, negligence claims as time-barred and a statutory violation claim for failure to state a cause of action. The appellate court modified this decision, reinstating the dismissed causes of action. It determined that CPLR 214-c, concerning the discovery of injury for latent effects of exposure, applied and that the date of discovery was a question of fact for trial. The court also affirmed the constitutionality of CPLR 214-c and that plaintiffs had a reasonable time to commence action under the shortened limitations period.

Chemical exposureOccupational illnessWorkers' compensationStatute of limitationsCPLR 214-cDiscovery ruleLatent effectsProduct liabilityNegligenceStatutory violations
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kahn v. Department of Education

Petitioner Leslie Kahn, a school social worker, was terminated by the New York City Department of Education after receiving an unsatisfactory rating from Principal Danielle Salzberg. Kahn, who had previously received satisfactory ratings, contended her evaluation and subsequent termination were flawed due to procedural defects and statutory violations. She pursued an administrative appeal, which reaffirmed her termination, before commencing a CPLR article 78 proceeding combined with claims under 42 USC § 1983. Respondents moved to dismiss the proceeding based on failure to file a notice of claim, statute of limitations, and failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The court denied all motions to dismiss, ruling that a notice of claim was not required for the equitable relief sought, the proceeding was timely due to the ambiguity of the administrative decision's finality and alleged statutory violations, and Kahn's right to pursue her civil rights claim was affirmed.

Probationary EmploymentEmployee TerminationUnsatisfactory Performance RatingCPLR Article 78Statute of Limitations DefenseAdministrative ReviewExhaustion of RemediesDue Process RightsCollective Bargaining Agreement ViolationEducation Law
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 7,133 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