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

Betal Environmental Corp. v. Local Union Number 78

In this labor action, Plaintiff Betal Environmental Corporation sued Local Union 78 for unfair labor practices under the LMRA and York Hunter Construction, Inc. for breach of contract. The court denied Betal’s claims against Local 78, finding no causal link between the union's actions and Betal's injury. However, the court granted Betal’s breach of contract claim against York, ruling that York improperly terminated Betal's subcontract and failed to compensate it under the contract's termination for convenience clause. York was ordered to pay Betal $16,000 in compensatory damages plus prejudgment interest, but lost profits were denied as they were excluded by the contract.

Labor Management Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottJurisdictional DisputeBreach of ContractSubcontracting AgreementLabor Harmony ProvisionInformational PicketingCompensatory DamagesPrejudgment Interest
References
24
Case No. CLAIM NO. 78
Regular Panel Decision

In Re DDI Corp.

This case concerns the application of excusable neglect to a late class proof of claim filed by Raymond Ferrari and other representatives on behalf of a putative class against DDi Corp., a debtor in a pre-arranged chapter 11 case. The claim was filed approximately six weeks after the bar date. The debtors moved to expunge the claim due to untimeliness and procedural defects, while the representatives cross-moved for leave to file late, arguing lack of actual notice. The court denied the cross-motion, finding that the class was an unknown creditor at the time the bar date notice was mailed, and therefore, excusable neglect was not established. Consequently, the debtors' motion to expunge Claim No. 78 was granted.

excusable neglectlate claimclass actionproof of claimbar datebankruptcysecurities fraudchapter 11actual noticeunknown creditor
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1997

Goodman v. 78 West 47th Street Corp.

A plaintiff slipped on an oily substance on a sidewalk in New York County and sued 78 West 47th Street Corp. and Kaplan Jewelers, Inc. The plaintiff alleged the oil came from construction work performed by independent contractors for 78 West 47th Street Corp. The Supreme Court denied 78 West 47th Street Corp.'s cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, ruling that there was no sufficient evidence to connect the injury to the defendant's activities, the relevant administrative codes did not impose liability on the landowner for injury, and the defendant was not liable for the alleged negligence of its independent contractors. The complaint against 78 West 47th Street Corp. was dismissed.

Premises LiabilitySidewalk MaintenanceIndependent Contractor LiabilityNegligenceSummary JudgmentSlip and FallAbutting LandownerNondelegable DutyCausationAppellate Review
References
23
Case No. 2-CP-937
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1996

Silverman v. Local 78, Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers

Daniel Silverman, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), petitioned for a temporary injunction against Local 78, a labor union. The petition stemmed from a charge filed by AIA Environmental Corp. (AIA) alleging that Local 78 engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing AIA job sites to force recognition and a collective bargaining agreement without filing a proper petition, in violation of NLRA § 8(b)(7)(C). The court found reasonable cause to believe that Local 78's picketing had a recognitional objective and continued for over thirty days without the required petition. Concluding that the injunction was just and proper, the court granted the petition, enjoining Local 78 from violating the NLRA.

Labor LawTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticePicketingNational Labor Relations ActRecognitional PicketingUnion OrganizingSection 8(b)(7)(C)Publicity ProvisoEmployer-Union Dispute
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 2007

Local 78, Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers v. Termon Construction, Inc.

This action, brought under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act, involved breaches of a collective bargaining agreement between Local 78, a labor union, and Termon Construction, Inc. The Court issued an oral opinion finding Termon had breached multiple articles of the CBA, including failures to pay wages and benefits, apply terms to all asbestos handlers, use Local 78 handlers, and allow union representatives site access. A subsequent trial on damages, where Termon failed to appear, led to findings based on the plaintiff's submissions. The Court awarded Local 78 damages for unpaid wages, benefit contributions, wages for union members, and legal fees incurred due to Termon's denial of access. Additionally, the Court granted attorney's fees and prejudgment interest due to the willful nature of the breaches, and directed the plaintiff to submit a proposed judgment.

Labor Management Relations ActCollective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractUnpaid WagesUnpaid BenefitsUnion RightsAttorney FeesPrejudgment InterestDamagesSection 301
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Betal Environmental Corp. v. Local Union Number 78, Asbestos, Lead & Hazardous Waste Laborers

Plaintiff Betal Environmental Corporation filed a labor action against Local Union 78 under section 303 of the LMRA, alleging unfair labor practices, and against York Hunter Construction, Inc. for breach of contract. Betal sought damages from Local 78 and payment from York, along with a declaratory judgment to void a provision in the collective bargaining agreement between Local 78 and York. Defendants moved to dismiss the sixth cause of action (declaratory judgment). The court granted the defendants' motion, ruling it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over direct section 8(e) violations under section 303 of the LMRA, concluding such claims fall under the NLRB's exclusive jurisdiction unless involving coercive activity under section 8(b)(4).

Labor Management Relations ActNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesHot Cargo ClauseCollective Bargaining AgreementSubject Matter JurisdictionSection 303 LMRASection 8(e) NLRASection 8(b)(4) NLRANational Labor Relations Board
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sines v. Opportunities For Broome, Inc.

Petitioner, a foreman, was dismissed from employment by a not-for-profit corporation in December 1987 for alleged misconduct, including sleeping on the job. After exhausting internal grievance procedures, which upheld the dismissal in September 1988, petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court determined that an article 78 proceeding was appropriate against the not-for-profit corporation. Petitioner challenged the termination on procedural grounds and argued the finding of just cause was arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate. The court found no merit in petitioner's procedural claims and concluded that the finding of just cause was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty was not disproportionately harsh. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

CPLR Article 78Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureNot-for-Profit CorporationArbitrary and CapriciousJust CauseWorkplace MisconductSleeping on JobFailure to SuperviseDue Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1997

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed a class action grievance against the County of Nassau on behalf of five Construction Inspector Trainees whose employment was terminated in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. An advisory arbitrator recommended in favor of the CSEA, but the County Executive overturned this decision. CSEA and the individual employees then initiated proceedings under CPLR articles 75 and 78, and sought damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR proceedings and individual breach of contract claims, while allowing CSEA to pursue its breach of contract claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the advisory arbitrator's recommendation was not binding and that CPLR article 78 was not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceAdvisory ArbitrationCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Breach of ContractPublic EmployeesEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewNassau County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lubrano v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by petitioners under CPLR article 78 to prevent the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board from issuing money judgments. The petitioners sought to enjoin the board until they were granted a full fact-finding hearing, challenging the board's determination that they failed to make compensation payments. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, vacating existing judgments and directing the board to provide a hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Board appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's judgment and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court held that the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, has exclusive jurisdiction over matters reviewable by it, thereby precluding recourse to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Any claims of procedural due process failures in administrative decisions, according to the court, are exclusively for the appellate court to resolve.

CPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardJurisdictionAppellate ReviewProcedural Due ProcessInjunctionMoney JudgmentsAdministrative DecisionSuffolk County Supreme CourtThird Judicial Department
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2008

Barresi v. County of Suffolk

The petitioner appealed an order and judgment dismissing their CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to compel a determination regarding back pay and sick leave benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. The initial claim was denied in 1992, and review was postponed until a worker's compensation decision in 2001. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed the petition based on the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches, as the petitioner failed to make a timely demand for GML § 207-c benefits after the worker's compensation decision. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the CPLR article 78 proceeding was untimely, as the statute of limitations expired even considering later correspondence as a demand and denial, and subsequent requests for reconsideration did not revive the claim.

CPLR Article 78MandamusBack PaySick Leave BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cStatute of LimitationsLachesWorker's Compensation ClaimAppeal DismissalGovernment Benefits
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 812 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