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

Albertson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

The court ruled that rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice do not provide for granting summary judgment in an equity action concerning the determination of title for adverse claimants to a fund held by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Consequently, the previous judgment and order were unanimously reversed, with costs awarded, and the motion was denied.

Summary JudgmentEquity ActionCivil ProcedureAdverse ClaimsFund DisputeReversed Judgment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Balint v. NYS Department of Corrections

Claimant, a correction lieutenant, sustained work-related injuries but continued to perform his regular duties for over a year before retiring and applying for postretirement benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that despite a permanent partial disability, he voluntarily withdrew from the labor market, denying him benefits. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that claimant's retirement was voluntary, as he worked without restriction, was not medically advised to retire, and found new full-time employment shortly thereafter. The court also upheld the denial of reduced earnings benefits, as the claimant failed to demonstrate his disability adversely affected his earning capacity or ability to find comparable employment.

Workers' CompensationVoluntary withdrawal from labor marketPermanent partial disabilityPostretirement benefitsReduced earnings benefitsSubstantial evidenceCorrection lieutenantMedical opinionEarning capacityEmployment search
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paese v. New York Seven-Up Bottling Co.

This case concerns a motion for Rule 11 sanctions filed by defendant Soft Drink and Brewery Workers Union, Local 812, against plaintiffs' counsel, Robert L. Ferris. Ferris represented nine former Seven-Up employees in a breach of fair representation claim against Local 812 under the Labor Management Relations Act. The underlying claim arose from Local 812's settlement of a WARN Act suit, with plaintiffs alleging the union failed to disclose material information regarding the settlement's impact on their creditor rights. At trial, Ferris failed to present any evidence demonstrating a causal link between the alleged omissions and the outcome of the ratification vote, which was an essential element of the plaintiffs' claim. The court found Ferris's signing and filing of the Findings of Fact and Joint Consolidated Pre-Trial Order, asserting causation without adequate proof after discovery, to be objectively unreasonable and a violation of Rule 11. Consequently, the defendant's motion for Rule 11 sanctions was granted, and Mr. Ferris was ordered to pay $2,000.00.

Rule 11 SanctionsBreach of Fair RepresentationLabor Management Relations ActWARN ActCausationAttorney MisconductObjective UnreasonablenessPost-Discovery ConductUnion SettlementBankruptcy Stay
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ahmed v. City of New York

The New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) promulgated "Health Care Rules" to deduct six cents per fare from taxi drivers for health care services and disability coverage. Petitioners, including taxi drivers, challenged these rules, arguing they were ultra vires and violated the separation of powers. The Supreme Court annulled the rules but initially denied restitution. On appeal, the court affirmed the annulment, finding the TLC exceeded its authority and acted arbitrarily in establishing the deductions. The appellate court modified the lower court's decision, granting the petitioners' request for restitution of the improperly deducted funds.

New York City Taxi and Limousine CommissionHealth Care RulesUltra ViresSeparation of PowersArbitrary and CapriciousRestitutionTaxi DriversDisability CoverageRegulatory AuthorityAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. 03-92677
Regular Panel Decision

Enron Corp. v. J.P. Morgan Securities Inc.

Enron filed a motion for reargument under Bankruptcy Rule 9023, seeking reconsideration of a May 2, 2006 opinion that denied its motion to amend its complaint to add Lehman Brothers Japan, Inc. as a defendant. Enron argued that the court overlooked Lehman's misrepresentation regarding named defendants, which constituted concealment under Rule 15(c)(3). The court found that Enron had sufficient information to name Lehman Japan and that its reliance on Lehman's statement was not reasonable. The court also denied considering new arguments raised by Enron as they were not timely. Ultimately, the court denied Enron's request for relief under Rule 9023, concluding that no material facts were overlooked, new arguments were untimely, and no manifest injustice occurred.

Bankruptcy Rule 9023Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(c)(3)Relation-Back DoctrineAmendment of ComplaintMistake in IdentityConcealmentMisrepresentationReasonable RelianceEquitable TollingFraudulent Concealment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueroa v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

Plaintiff Nohemi Figueroa, a former employee of the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC), sued for employment discrimination based on national origin and gender under federal, state, and city human rights laws. HHC moved for summary judgment, asserting that Figueroa did not suffer adverse employment action, that the alleged actions did not infer discrimination, and that HHC had legitimate business reasons. The court ruled that the denial of vacation choice was not a materially adverse employment action. While assuming the initial denial of sick leave could be considered an adverse action, the court found insufficient evidence to infer sex or national origin discrimination. Ultimately, the court concluded that HHC presented legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions. Therefore, the defendant's motion for summary judgment was granted in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationGender DiscriminationTitle VIINew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentPrima Facie CaseAdverse Employment ActionVacation Leave
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desser v. Ashton

This opinion addresses the sufficiency of an oral contract to satisfy the "purchaser-seller" requirement in a private action under Section 10(b) of the 1934 Exchange Act and Rule 10b-5, where no actual purchase or sale of securities occurred. The court considers whether such an oral agreement, even if potentially unenforceable under the statute of frauds, can support a federal securities claim. Reviewing existing jurisprudence, the court emphasizes a liberal and flexible construction of anti-fraud provisions to protect investors. It concludes that an action under Rule 10b-5 is not deficient merely because the contract relied upon is oral rather than written. Consequently, the defendants' motions for summary judgment are denied, and the case is set to proceed to trial, affirming the court's jurisdiction over the matter.

Securities fraudOral contractsRule 10b-5Purchaser-seller requirementStatute of fraudsPendent jurisdictionSummary judgmentFederal court jurisdictionExchange Act of 1934Investor protection
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Butler v. Monaghan

City police officers sought a temporary injunction and declaratory judgment to invalidate a police commissioner's rule prohibiting police force members from joining labor unions. The court addressed whether plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm and the likelihood of their success on the merits. It found no irreparable harm, as officers could withdraw union applications or appeal disciplinary actions, leading to full restoration of rights if successful. Furthermore, the court noted that previous rulings in other states consistently upheld the commissioner's authority in such matters. The court also highlighted that the New York State Constitution's provision on employee organization was specifically amended to exclude public employees. Consequently, the motion for a temporary injunction was denied.

Police officersLabor unionsTemporary injunctionDeclaratory judgmentPolice commissionerDisciplinary actionIrreparable harmPublic employeesConstitutional lawFreedom of association
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Statewide Coalition of Hispanic Chambers of Commerce v. New York City Department of Health & Mental Hygiene

This case concerns a challenge to the constitutionality of the New York City Board of Health’s Sugary Drinks Portion Cap Rule, commonly known as the "Soda Ban." The rule prohibited certain food service establishments from serving sugary drinks in sizes larger than 16 ounces. Petitioners, various interest groups, argued that the Board of Health exceeded its lawfully delegated authority and violated the principle of separation of powers. Both the Supreme Court and this appellate court agreed, declaring the regulation invalid. The court applied the four-factor test from Boreali v Axelrod, concluding that the Board improperly engaged in legislative policymaking rather than interstitial rulemaking, balancing competing concerns, acting without legislative guidance, addressing an area of legislative failure, and without requiring special expertise.

ConstitutionalitySeparation of PowersAdministrative LawRulemaking AuthorityPublic HealthSugary DrinksSoda BanLegislative AuthorityUltra ViresArticle 78 Proceeding
References
23
Showing 1-10 of 7,110 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