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 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanchett v. Graphic Techniques, Inc.

Plaintiff L. Sue Hanchett was seriously injured in January 1991 while employed by James River Corporation. She and her husband filed a lawsuit alleging negligence against Richard Hicks, a design engineer assigned by Graphic Techniques, Inc., claiming he removed safety guards. Defendants moved to amend their answer to assert a Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity defense and for summary judgment, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, plaintiffs contested the amendment due to prejudice and argued Hicks was not a special employee. The Appellate Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no undue prejudice and concluding that Hicks was indeed a special employee of James River, thereby making the Workers' Compensation Law the plaintiffs' exclusive remedy.

special employmentWorkers' Compensation Lawsummary judgmentpleading amendmentCPLR 3025 (b)negligencepersonal injuryexclusivity defenseappellate reviewSaratoga County
References
7
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1984

Polito v. Polito

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her complaint seeking rescission of a release and reformation of a deed, alleging duress. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the complaint. The appellate court found ample evidence of the defendant's physical and emotional abuse, which compelled the plaintiff to sign the release, thus depriving her of free will. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remitted the matter for entry of a judgment rescinding the release and reforming the deed to establish joint tenancy of the property.

DuressRescissionDeed ReformationDomestic ViolenceSpousal AbuseJoint TenancyEquitable ReliefAppellate ReviewFree WillRatification of Agreement
References
5
Case No. C.A. No. 02A01-9607-CV-00154
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 1997

Gordon Burks v. Belz-Wilson Properties

Gordon Burks was paralyzed after attempting a backflip into a gymnastics pit at the Wimbleton Sportsplex during a Crye-Leike Olympics event in Memphis. He had signed a release form the day before, which he did not read. Burks sued Belz-Wilson Properties and other related entities, alleging negligence for unsafe premises. The trial court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, upholding the release. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the decision, finding that while the defendants were the true parties to the release through their trade name, the release's language concerning 'participation in these events' was ambiguous and did not cover Burks' injury, which occurred during an activity unrelated to a scheduled event.

NegligenceRelease AgreementSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySpinal InjurySportsplexTrade NameContract InterpretationAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Burks v. Belz-Wilson Properties

Gordon Burks was injured attempting a back flip at the Wimbleton Sportsplex in Memphis during a Crye-Leike Olympics event, suffering cervical spinal injuries. He had signed a release form, but later sued the owners, Belz-Wilson Properties et al., for negligence, alleging failure to warn of dangers and provide safe premises. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants based on the release. On appeal, the court found the defendants were indeed the true owners covered by the release's trade name 'Wimbleton Sportsplex'. However, the appellate court reversed the summary judgment, ruling that the release's language 'relating to participation in these events' was ambiguous and did not cover injuries sustained in activities unrelated to scheduled events.

NegligenceReleaseExculpatory ClauseSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityTrade NameParol EvidenceSports InjuryPremises Liability
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinnis v. Mills

Allstate Insurance Company was dismissed via summary judgment from a tort action after an insured, McGinnis, signed a release. McGinnis, the plaintiff, later discovered a dormant thyroid condition activated by the accident, which was initially deemed unrelated. Citing mutual mistake of fact, McGinnis sought to set aside the release. The court vacated the summary judgment dismissal, remanding the case for an evidentiary hearing to determine if the release should be rescinded due to mutual mistake of material fact.

Mutual MistakeRelease RescissionSummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury ClaimInsurance LiabilityMedical ConditionTort ActionRemand for Evidentiary HearingAppellate ReviewContractual Dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lugo v. Gaines

This dissenting opinion concerns a petitioner's request for review of a determination terminating his participation in a temporary release program and for monetary damages. The petitioner, an inmate, was removed from the program after a urine sample tested positive for cocaine. The dissent argues that the procedures followed, despite a lack of formal chain of custody documentation, did not violate the petitioner's due process rights, as strict rules of evidence are not required in such disciplinary proceedings. Citing judicial precedent, the dissenting judges emphasize that an inmate's constitutional protections are diminished by institutional needs. Therefore, they would affirm the termination of the petitioner's work release program.

temporary release programdrug testingdue processinmate rightscorrectional facilitiesadministrative hearingchain of custodyurine analysisArticle 78State liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,055 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