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

Levenson v. Lippman

This case addresses whether the Chief Administrative Judge exceeded his authority by amending 22 NYCRR 127.2 (b) to permit administrative judges to review and modify trial judges' awards of compensation to assigned counsel that exceed statutory limits. Plaintiffs, assigned counsel, challenged the amendment, arguing it unconstitutionally created an appellate court by transferring review power. The Supreme Court upheld the amendment, finding the Chief Administrative Judge acted within constitutional and statutory authority. The Appellate Division reversed, but this Court reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court's judgment. The Court affirmed that such compensation awards are administrative acts not subject to judicial review, and the amendment validly fills an administrative gap, thus upholding the Chief Administrative Judge's regulatory power.

Constitutional LawAdministrative LawJudicial AdministrationAssigned CounselAttorney FeesAppellate JurisdictionRulemaking AuthorityChief Administrative JudgeTrial CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2012

In re Bank of America Corp. Securities, Derivative, & Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) Litigation

Plaintiffs moved for class certification in a securities fraud lawsuit against Bank of America Corporation (BofA) concerning alleged misstatements and omissions related to its acquisition of Merrill Lynch & Co., Inc. The claims were brought under both the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and the Securities Act of 1933. The Court, presided over by District Judge P. Kevin Castel, granted the motion to certify all proposed classes, including those for 1934 Act claims, 1933 Act claims, and purchasers of January 2011 call options. The Court found that the plaintiffs satisfied all Rule 23(a) and Rule 23(b)(3) requirements for class certification, rejecting the defendants' arguments regarding the merits of the Section 14(a) claim, the rebuttable presumptions of reliance, and the scope of the class definitions. Bernstein Litowitz Berger & Grossman LLP, Kaplan Fox & Kilsheimer LLP, and Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP were appointed as class counsel.

Class ActionSecurities FraudRule 23 CertificationPredominance RequirementNumerosity RequirementCommonality RequirementTypicality RequirementAdequacy of RepresentationSecurities Exchange Act of 1934Securities Act of 1933
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Summit Construction Services Group, Inc. v. ACT Abatement, LLC

Plaintiff, a general contractor named Summit, sued its subcontractor, ACT Abatement, LLC, and insurance brokers Allen Freeman, Scott Handwerger, and A. Logan Insurance Brokerage for fraudulent misrepresentation. Plaintiff alleged that the insurance brokers provided inaccurate certificates of insurance, leading Summit to believe ACT had valid workers' compensation coverage. Two ACT employees were injured while uninsured, forcing Summit to cover their claims and incur increased insurance premiums. The court found that the disclaimers on the certificates of insurance made it unreasonable for Summit to rely on them as proof of coverage. Therefore, the motions for summary judgment and dismissal of the complaint by the defendant insurance brokers were granted, dismissing the claims against them.

Fraudulent MisrepresentationInsurance Broker LiabilityWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentCertificate of InsuranceDisclaimer ClauseNegligent MisrepresentationGeneral ContractorSubcontractorInsurance Coverage Lapse
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 1978

In re Mycuta A.

This case involves a juvenile respondent who admitted to acts constituting assault in the third degree. A dispositional hearing was held in Bronx County Family Court to determine the applicability of amendments to Family Court Act Section 756, which became effective on September 1, 1978. The court addressed two primary legal questions: first, whether the revised one-year maximum initial placement for misdemeanor acts applied, and second, whether the provisions for direct placement into a secure facility by the Family Court were applicable. The court ruled that both amended provisions applied to the respondent, as the adjudication occurred after the amendment's effective date. Consequently, the respondent was placed with the Division for Youth for one year, with the Division authorized to place her directly into a secure facility if deemed appropriate.

Juvenile DelinquencyFamily Court ActPlacementSecure FacilityMisdemeanorEx Post FactoStatutory InterpretationDivision for YouthBronx County Family CourtDispositional Hearing
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Opn. No.

This legal opinion addresses whether cost-of-living adjustments paid by the New York City Transit Authority (TA) to its employees, represented by the Transport Workers Union of America (TWU), are subject to suspension under the wage freeze provisions of the Financial Emergency Act for the City of New York. The Act, enacted in 1975 to address the city's fiscal crisis, includes the TA as a 'covered organization' whose salary and wage increases are suspended. The opinion concludes that cost-of-living adjustments constitute 'salary or wages' based on common interpretation and legal precedents. Therefore, the opinion holds that such payments by the TA would violate the Act's wage freeze mandate, aligning with the legislative intent to prevent the city's financial collapse.

Wage freezeCost-of-living adjustmentsFinancial Emergency ActNew York City fiscal crisisPublic employeesCollective bargainingStatutory interpretationEmergency powersGovernmental entitiesEconomic stabilization
References
11
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. Docket No. 4
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Larson

This criminal action involves several defendants, members of Local 17, charged with racketeering conspiracy and Hobbs Act extortion conspiracy. The charges stem from alleged acts of violence, threats, and property damage aimed at coercing construction firms in Western New York into collective bargaining agreements and hiring Local 17 members. The Magistrate Judge recommended dismissal, arguing the union's objectives were legitimate. However, the Chief Judge set aside this recommendation, ruling that the alleged tactics fell outside the legal protection for legitimate union activities under both the Hobbs Act and New York extortion law, thus denying the defendants' motions to dismiss the indictment.

RICOHobbs ActExtortionRacketeeringLabor UnionsCriminal ConspiracyFirst AmendmentDue ProcessCollective BargainingStrike Violence
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. American Locomotive Co.

This case involves a motion by the United States of America for a preliminary injunction to prevent the continuation of a strike at the American Locomotive Co. (ALCO) plant in Dunkirk, New York, by the United Steel Workers of America, CIO. The strike, which commenced in August 1952 over wages and benefits, was deemed to imperil national safety due to ALCO's crucial role in producing materials for the Atomic Energy Program. Chief Judge Knight considered the constitutionality of the injunction provisions of Sections 206 and 208 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947 (Taft-Hartley Act), which the Union challenged. The court upheld the constitutionality of the Act and its jurisdiction, denying the Union's motions to dismiss and dissolve the temporary restraining order, and consequently granted the Government's motion for a preliminary injunction to halt the strike.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionTaft-Hartley ActNational EmergencyStrike InjunctionAtomic Energy ProgramNational SecurityConstitutional LawJudicial PowerInterstate Commerce
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rockland County Department of Social Services ex rel. McM. v. Brian McM.

The case addresses the applicability of Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vii) to a nonparty mother's confidential communications with her psychologist and social worker during a child protective proceeding. The father, accused of sexually abusing his son, sought to subpoena the mother's records, which she moved to quash, citing privilege. The Family Court denied the motion regarding the psychologist, ruling that the privilege did not apply. This appellate court affirmed, holding that FCA § 1046 (a) (vii) abrogates psychologist-client and social worker-client privileges for all relevant evidence in child protective proceedings, not just for parties. It emphasized that the child's best interests in determining the truth of the abuse allegations and preventing unnecessary estrangement from the father outweigh the nonparty mother's confidentiality interests. The court ordered an in camera review of the subpoenaed records to determine their relevance.

Child Protective ServicesFamily Court Act Article 10Psychologist-Client PrivilegeSocial Worker-Client PrivilegeChild Sexual Abuse AllegationsFact-Finding HearingSubpoena EnforcementNonparty Parent RightsIn Camera ReviewBest Interests of the Child
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,781 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