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

Hobbs v. Lavine

Petitioner's home relief assistance was discontinued by the New York City Department of Social Services based on a finding that she was fully employed. This determination was affirmed by the respondent after a hearing. The court found that the respondent's determination was not supported by substantial evidence, as the city agency's evidence consisted only of two vague case-record entries. Consequently, the application was granted, and the determination was annulled, with petitioner's assistance directed to be reinstated retroactively.

Home ReliefPublic AssistanceSocial ServicesEmployment StatusSubstantial EvidenceArticle 78 CPLRAdministrative ReviewRetroactive BenefitsDiscontinuation of Benefits
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Florence v. Krasucki

This case involves an appeal from an order that dismissed an action brought by migrant farm workers (plaintiffs) seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. The plaintiffs alleged that their eviction on October 20, 1978, by defendant Freer and State troopers from dwellings provided by Freer Fruit Farms, Inc., violated their rights under Article 7 of the Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law and the New York State Constitution, as it was not preceded by notice and hearing. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, citing that the plaintiffs no longer resided on the premises, rendering the requested relief advisory. Additionally, a pending Federal court action concerning the same parties and issues further justified dismissal to prevent contradictory judicial outcomes and increased litigation.

EvictionMigrant WorkersDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefReal Property LawNew York State ConstitutionDismissalMootnessPending Federal ActionJudicial Discretion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2012

Ruesch v. Ruesch

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in a divorce and ancillary relief action. The Supreme Court found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a stipulation by allowing her paramour to reside in the marital home. The court suspended maintenance payments and imposed a prospective fine. The plaintiff argued for retrospective application of these penalties and an award of an attorney's fee. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive for past acts without proven actual loss. The court also found the denial of attorney's fees to be without merit.

DivorceCivil ContemptMaintenance PaymentsStipulation ViolationProspective FineMarital HomeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionRemedial FineAttorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Devon Knitwear Co. v. Levinson

The plaintiffs filed a motion to strike an affirmative defense presented by the defendant labor union. The union argued that the plaintiffs came to court with 'unclean hands' due to their alleged refusal to bargain collectively, constituting an unfair labor practice under the National Labor Relations Act. Plaintiffs contended that the court lacked jurisdiction over unfair labor practices, as this power is exclusively vested in the National Labor Relations Board. The court clarified that while the NLRB has exclusive jurisdiction to *prevent* unfair labor practices, the court retains its inherent equitable power to deny relief to a party with 'unclean hands'. Therefore, the court found the union's defense legally sufficient and denied the plaintiffs' motion to strike.

EquityInjunctionUnclean HandsNational Labor Relations ActLabor LawUnfair Labor PracticesJurisdictionAffirmative DefenseMotion to StrikeCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Langham v. State

This case concerns an appeal by teachers, represented by the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), challenging the denial of retroactive dual family health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs originally lost dual family coverage under a State Health Insurance Plan and subsequently sought the same retroactive benefits granted to members of another union, the New York Educators Association (NYEA), following a separate settlement. Their request was denied, leading them to file an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Special Term dismissed the complaint as untimely, a decision affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the four-month limitations period of CPLR 217 governed the declaratory judgment action and began on January 3, 1984, when plaintiffs learned of the unequal treatment, rather than the later date of their specific request's denial.

Declaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCivil Service LawCPLRStatute of LimitationsDual Family CoverageHealth InsuranceState EmployeesCollective BargainingUnequal Treatment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vainchenker v. Vainchenker

The plaintiff husband appealed portions of a Supreme Court judgment concerning his divorce and ancillary relief. Key points of contention included the equitable distribution of his medical license, the maintenance awarded to his wife, and his contribution to their eldest child's college expenses. The appellate court affirmed that the husband's New York medical license constituted a marital asset, subject to equitable distribution due to his enhanced earning capacity from training during the marriage, and upheld the wife's share. However, the court found the maintenance award to the wife was an improvident exercise of discretion and deleted it, leading to a recalculation and increase in child support. Additionally, the judgment was modified to ensure child support payments would be credited towards college expenses when the eldest child resides away from home.

Equitable DistributionMarital AssetMedical LicenseMaintenanceChild SupportCollege ExpensesDivorceAppellate ReviewEnhanced Earning CapacityFamily Law
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 1990

Wilson v. Wilson

In an appeal concerning a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant wife challenged the Supreme Court, Suffolk County's judgment regarding maintenance, child support, and marital property division. The appellate court found the initial five-year maintenance award for a 17-year marriage to be an improvident exercise of discretion, particularly given the defendant's inability to reenter the job market immediately due to child custody and the need for further training. Consequently, the judgment was modified to extend the maintenance period from five to eight years. Additionally, the plaintiff husband was directed to maintain existing medical, dental, and life insurance policies for the benefit of the child and the defendant wife, and to prorate the child's future uninsured healthcare expenses according to parental income proportions. The judgment, as modified, was affirmed.

DivorceAncillary ReliefMaintenance AwardChild SupportMarital Property DivisionAppellate ReviewDomestic Relations LawSpousal SupportHealth InsuranceLife Insurance
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seminerio v. Seminerio

In an appeal concerning a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant contested awards for maintenance, pension benefits, and attorney's fees. The appellate court modified the judgment by deleting the plaintiff's $800 per month maintenance payments. The decision was affirmed in part and remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings. The court found that the trial court erred in precluding testimony regarding the defendant's anticipated retirement, which should be considered when determining maintenance amount under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a). The matter was remitted to admit evidence of the defendant's future earning capacity and the plaintiff's expenses to properly determine maintenance.

DivorceMaintenance PaymentsSpousal SupportAncillary ReliefAppealMarital ResidenceEarning CapacityRetirement BenefitsJudicial ErrorRemittitur
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Travell v. Travell

Petitioner appealed Family Court's decision to dismiss his applications for relief from child support payments and commitment, and to grant the Support Collection Unit's applications for orders of commitment. Petitioner claimed inability to work due to a neck injury and major depression. Medical testimony from Dr. Bruce Russell, a family physician, and Kelly Farnan, a psychiatric nurse practitioner, supported his claims, but their opinions relied heavily on petitioner's subjective reports of pain. Family Court found petitioner's testimony contradictory regarding his disability, noting his ability to drive, perform household work, and care for his child. The Appellate Division affirmed Family Court's decision, deferring to its credibility assessment of the petitioner's disability claims.

Child Support EnforcementFamily Court ProceedingsParental ObligationsMedical DisabilityWorkers' Compensation ClaimSocial Security DisabilityCredibility DeterminationCervical RadiculopathyMajor DepressionPsychiatric Evaluation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 14,421 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