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 26, 2025

Matter of Jack V. (Jack U.)

This case concerns the termination of a father's (Jack U.) parental rights due to permanent neglect of his twin sons (Jack V. and another child). The children were removed shortly after birth in 2016 and remained in foster care for nearly their entire lives. The Broome County Department of Social Services initiated proceedings, alleging the incarcerated father failed to plan for his children's future despite the agency's diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationship. Family Court (Levine, J.) granted the petition, terminating parental rights and freeing the children for adoption. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed, concluding that the agency met its burden of proof regarding diligent efforts and the father's failure to offer a feasible plan.

Parental rightsChild neglectIncarcerationFoster care placementTermination of parental rightsFamily lawAppellate reviewDiligent effortsService planBest interests of the child
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jack T.

This case involves an appeal concerning a mentally incompetent juvenile, Jack T., who faced multiple delinquency petitions. After being found incompetent and dangerous, Family Court Judges remanded him to the Commissioner of Mental Hygiene. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that Family Court could not commit a mentally retarded juvenile under CPL article 730 and required adherence to Mental Hygiene Law procedures. Following remand, a new hearing assessed Jack T.'s competency and need for involuntary care. Medical examiners concluded Jack T. remained incompetent to stand trial but was no longer a danger to himself or the community and did not require involuntary commitment. Judge Gibbell, presiding, highlighted a legislative oversight, concluding that without certification under the Mental Hygiene Law or the ability to use CPL 730.50, the Family Court's hands are tied, rendering it unable to act in such cases, and strongly urged legislative reform.

Juvenile DelinquencyMental IncompetenceFamily CourtHabeas CorpusCPL Article 730Mental Hygiene LawDue ProcessInvoluntary CommitmentLegislative ReformJudicial Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billy Jack for Her, Inc. v. New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear & Allied Workers' Union

This case involves an action initially brought in state court by Billy Jack for Her, Inc., an apparel jobber, against the New York Coat, Suit, Dress, Rainwear and Allied Workers’ Union. Billy Jack alleged tortious interference with contractual relations due to the Union's picketing aimed at securing a 'Hazantown agreement.' The Union removed the case to federal court. The court denied Billy Jack's motion to remand, ruling that the state law claim was preempted by federal labor law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction. The Union's motion to modify a temporary restraining order was denied as moot because the order had already expired.

Labor disputeFederal preemptionTortious interference with contractPicketingHazantown agreementNational Labor Relations ActNLRA Section 8(b)(4)(B)NLRA Section 8(b)(7)(A)Removal jurisdictionFederal question jurisdiction
References
69
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fernandez v. Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel

Plaintiff Augustine Fernandez filed a lawsuit in New York State Court following an automobile collision, seeking one million dollars in damages. He named Hale Trailer Brake & Wheel, John Doe, JBN Transport, and Dan Schantz Farm & Greenhouses as defendants. The defendants removed the case to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction. Fernandez moved to remand the case back to state court, arguing the removal was untimely and the amount in controversy was insufficient. The court, applying the "last-served defendant rule," determined the removal was timely as the last defendant received the summons on April 23, 2004, and the removal petition was filed within 30 days. The court also accepted Fernandez's stated damages of $1 million for diversity jurisdiction purposes, rejecting his attempt to disclaim it. Consequently, Fernandez’s motion to remand the case to state court was denied.

Diversity JurisdictionRemoval JurisdictionMotion to RemandTimeliness of RemovalLast-Served Defendant RuleAmount in ControversyService of ProcessStatutory AgentCivil ProcedureSouthern District of New York
References
23
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04809 [140 AD3d 532]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 2016

Masi v. Cassone Trailer & Container Co.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, Bronx County, which denied motions for summary judgment by defendant Cassone Leasing Inc. and third-party defendant LKQ Hunts Point Auto Parts Corp. The case involved Anthony Masi's personal injury claims against various defendants, including Cassone Trailer & Container Co. and Cassone Leasing Inc. The court clarified that a prior settlement agreement under Workers' Compensation Law § 32, entered into by Masi and his employer LKQ, only settled workers' compensation claims and did not release personal injury claims against other defendants. Furthermore, a subsequent broad release agreement between Masi and LKQ released claims solely in favor of LKQ, not extending to other defendants in the personal injury suit. The court did not address whether the release barred third-party actions against LKQ, as that issue was not raised below.

Summary judgmentPersonal injury claimsWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement agreementRelease agreementThird-party actionsAppellate reviewDismissal motionScope of releaseEmployer liability
References
1
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01170 [225 AD3d 587]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2024

Jia Zhong Liu v. Yung

The plaintiff, Jia Zhong Liu, allegedly sustained personal injuries after falling from an unsecured ladder while working at the home of defendants Jack Chiang Min Yung and Tzufen Chiang Chen. Plaintiff claimed Jack Chiang Min Yung directed him to climb the ladder to address a leak. Plaintiff subsequently filed an action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss these claims against Jack Chiang Min Yung. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding the defendants failed to establish prima facie that the plaintiff's activity was outside the scope of Labor Law § 240 (1) or that Jack Chiang Min Yung did not direct or control the work, thereby denying summary judgment.

Personal InjuryLadder FallConstruction AccidentLabor LawWorkplace SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewHomeowner ExemptionNegligenceDuty to Supervise
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwarz v. Valente

The plaintiff, a worker hired to re-shingle the defendant Jack Valente's roof, suffered personal injuries after falling from a ladder. The jury initially found that while Valente violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to provide safety equipment, this violation was not a substantial factor in the plaintiff's injuries. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, set aside this portion of the verdict and granted judgment as a matter of law on liability for the plaintiff. Jack Valente appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order and interlocutory judgment, ruling that no rational person could conclude the Labor Law § 240 (1) violation was not a proximate cause of the plaintiff's injuries.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilityConstruction AccidentLadder FallProximate CauseJury VerdictJudgment as a Matter of LawAppellate ReviewLabor LawNondelegable Duty
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1986

Goslin v. La Mora

Plaintiff's decedent was fatally injured while setting up defendant Nancy L. La Mora's mobile home, which slipped from its jacks and crushed him. The wrongful death action was based on theories of the mobile home being a dangerous instrumentality, the site constituting a dangerous condition imposing a higher duty of care on the landowner, and the landowner's failure to provide a safe workplace. The court found that an unelevated mobile home is not a dangerous instrumentality, and while on jacks it could be, the decedent's voluntary work placed it in that position. The court also determined that the landowner was not expected to recognize the falling trailer as a hidden danger, and the difficulties of balancing it were obvious to the decedent, who had prior experience. Finally, the contention regarding failure to provide a safe workplace was rejected because the decedent was a volunteer, not an employee protected by Labor Law.

Wrongful DeathMobile Home AccidentLandowner LiabilityDangerous ConditionDangerous InstrumentalityVolunteer WorkerPremises LiabilityNegligenceSafe Workplace DutyDuty of Care
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1983

Weber v. George Cook, Ltd.

Plaintiff Jack Weber, aged 68, filed a lawsuit under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) alleging wrongful termination by the defendant in 1981, after working as a manufacturers’ representative since 1971. He claimed his discharge was due to the defendant's knowing and willful desire to terminate older manufacturers’ representatives and replace them with younger individuals. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction as it did not meet the ADEA's definition of an "employer," which requires twenty or more employees for twenty or more weeks. The Court held an evidentiary hearing, concluding that even with a liberal interpretation, the defendant never employed more than nineteen individuals for the statutory period in 1980 or 1981. Consequently, the defendant’s motion for summary judgment was granted, and the complaint was dismissed for want of subject matter jurisdiction.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawADEASummary JudgmentSubject Matter JurisdictionEmployer DefinitionIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSales RepresentativeManufacturers' Representative
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alonso v. UNCLE JACK'S STEAKHOUSE, INC.

Plaintiffs sought conditional certification of a collective action under FLSA § 216(b) against Defendants, owners of Uncle Jack's Steakhouse restaurants, alleging minimum wage, overtime, and tip credit violations, and retaliation. The Court, presided over by District Judge Deborah A. Batts, granted conditional class certification, finding a factual nexus among the claims of the named and potential opt-in plaintiffs. The Court also authorized court-facilitated notice to employees, with the exception of social security numbers, which were denied without prejudice to renewal. The decision emphasizes the minimal burden for plaintiffs at this stage and the remedial purposes of the FLSA. Defendants are ordered to provide employee information within 30 days.

FLSACollective ActionConditional CertificationWage and HourOvertimeMinimum WageTip CreditRetaliationEmployee RightsClass Action
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 218 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