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. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03063
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2020

Williams v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Plaintiff Carson Williams sued the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA), Liro Program, and Corbex, Inc. after a slip and fall incident caused by a ceiling leak at Castle Hill Houses. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision, denying NYCHA's motion for summary judgment and reinstating the complaint against them. The appellate court found that factual issues existed regarding NYCHA's potential long-standing notice of the leak condition, based on a witness affidavit and photographic evidence. However, the dismissal of claims against Liro and Corbex was affirmed, as they were contractors and not landowners, and therefore did not owe a direct duty to the plaintiff.

Slip and FallPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNegligenceLandowner LiabilityContractor LiabilityNotice of DefectAffidavit SufficiencyRoutine Inspection
References
5
Case No. 01-04-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Heritage Housing Development, Inc., F/K/A Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. Heritage Geriatric Housing Development Viii, Inc. v. Velma Carr, as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Raymond Carr

Velma Carr brought a survival action against Heritage Geriatric Housing Development VIII, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Sam Houston Gardens ("Houston Gardens") and its parent corporation, Heritage Housing Development, Inc. f/k/a Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. ("HHD"), for negligent nursing home care of her deceased husband, Raymond Carr. A jury found both corporate entities and employees negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against HHD, finding legally insufficient evidence to support vicarious liability against the parent corporation because it did not control the details of patient care. However, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim against Houston Gardens. Due to the potential impact of HHD's inclusion on the jury's apportionment of liability and damages, the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim against Houston Gardens.

Nursing Home NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate ControlNegligent CareTexas Court of AppealsRemand for New TrialMedical Malpractice
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2014

New York State Assn. for Affordable Hous. v. Council of the City of N.Y.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to affirm the constitutionality of Local Law No. 44 (2012) of the City of New York. This local law, enacted by the City Council, aims to control and restrict the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) in its efforts to create affordable housing. Saxe argues that Local Law 44 improperly contravenes state legislature's statutory delegations of responsibility to HPD, restricting the agency's authority. The local law adds reporting requirements for HPD and developers, but also directs that certain contractors be deemed ineligible for prequalified lists if they fail to provide wage information or have a history of construction conditions. The dissent contends that Local Law 44 interferes with and frustrates the operation of state laws by imposing additional terms and conditions on HPD's supervisory role over affordable housing construction, thereby impeding HPD's discretion and flexibility. While not agreeing with the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection arguments, Saxe aligns with the City and HPD's conflict preemption argument, asserting that the local law is invalid.

Affordable HousingLocal Law PreemptionState Statutory AuthorityNew York City CharterHousing Preservation and Development (HPD)City Council LegislationConflict PreemptionMunicipal Home RuleContractor EligibilityWage Reporting Requirements
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vulcan Affordable Housing Corp. v. Hartnett

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether a low-income housing project in the City of Albany, partially funded by a grant from the Affordable Housing Corporation (AHC), qualifies as a "public works" project under Labor Law § 220, which would necessitate the payment of prevailing wages. The petitioner, a private contractor engaged in building the housing units, refused an administrative subpoena for payroll information, asserting Labor Law § 220 was inapplicable. The project involved construction of low- and moderate-income housing, with title held by Capital City Housing Development Fund Company (CCH), and no public ownership, access, or use of the structures. Supreme Court concluded, and the appellate court affirmed, that the project did not meet the criteria for a "public works" project despite serving a public function of neighborhood rehabilitation, distinguishing it from fully subsidized public housing. Consequently, the subpoena duces tecum seeking payroll information was quashed.

Prevailing WagePublic Works ProjectLabor Law § 220Private Housing Finance LawAffordable HousingCPLR Article 78Subpoena Duces TecumPrivate ContractorGrant FundingConstruction Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor Hous. Auth. v. Shorts

The Taylor Housing Authority (THA) appealed a temporary injunction and a denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning counterclaims from Taylor Sunset Housing Development (TSHD) and Mallard Run Housing Development (MRHD). THA initially sued TSHD, MRHD, and Steve A. Shorts over ownership and operational control of public housing projects, alleging fraudulent schemes. MRHD counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference, seeking damages and specific performance for property title. The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction which prevented THA from interfering with TSHD and MRHD's operations, upholding the status quo. However, the court partially reversed the jurisdictional order, ruling that governmental immunity barred MRHD's claims for specific performance to convey title, while allowing counterclaims for monetary relief to proceed as potential offsets against THA's original monetary claims.

Governmental ImmunityTemporary InjunctionPlea to JurisdictionHousing AuthorityNonprofit CorporationCorporate GovernanceBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelTortious InterferenceSpecific Performance
References
34
Case No. 348-363561-25
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 03, 2025

Pecos Housing Finance Corporation, Pleasanton Housing Finance Corporation, Maverick Housing Finance Corporation, and La Villa Housing Finance Corporation v. City of Arlington

The City of Arlington and City of Fort Worth initiated a lawsuit against several Housing Finance Corporations (HFCs) and Joe Don Bobbitt, the Chief Appraiser of the Tarrant Appraisal District. The cities allege that these HFCs are unlawfully removing properties in Tarrant County from tax appraisal rolls, resulting in significant loss of tax revenue. The core of the dispute revolves around the interpretation and application of the Texas Housing Finance Corporation Act, with cities arguing that HFCs are operating outside their geographical jurisdictions and for non-low-income housing purposes. The HFCs filed pleas to the jurisdiction and motions to transfer venue. The court denied Pecos HFC's plea to the jurisdiction and granted the temporary injunctions sought by both cities, prohibiting HFCs from further acquisitions or tax exemption requests in Arlington and Fort Worth, and preventing the Chief Appraiser from granting such exemptions. The HFCs are now appealing these interlocutory orders.

Housing Finance Corporation ActTax Exemption DisputeProperty Tax LitigationDeclaratory JudgmentTemporary InjunctionGovernmental ImmunityVenue DisputeAdministrative RemediesLocal Government LawTarrant County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Madeira v. Affordable Housing Foundation, Inc.

This case involves an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by plaintiff Jose Madeira at a construction site. The plaintiff sued Affordable Housing, the site owner, and Mountain Developers, the general contractor, under New York Labor Law § 240(1) (Scaffold Law). A jury in Phase I found the defendants liable and awarded Jose Madeira $638,671.63. In Phase II, the jury determined that the third-party defendant, Cleidson Silva d/b/a C & L Construction (plaintiff's employer), was 82% liable for the accident, while Mountain and Affordable were each 9% liable based on an indemnification agreement. The court addresses post-trial motions from both third-party defendants (Silva) for a new trial and third-party plaintiffs (Affordable and Mountain) for judgment notwithstanding the verdict, both of which are denied. Key issues included the plaintiff's right to lost earnings as an undocumented worker, the jury's apportionment of fault, and the preclusion of proof regarding lack of insurance.

Scaffold LawLabor Law § 240(1)Indemnification AgreementThird-Party ActionJudgment Notwithstanding the VerdictNew Trial MotionUndocumented Worker RightsLost EarningsImmigration Reform and Control Act (IRCA)Apportionment of Fault
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Telesca v. Long Island Housing Partnership, Inc.

The plaintiff, Maria Telesca, who suffers from dwarfism and mobility impairments, filed a civil action against multiple defendants, including housing agencies and municipalities, alleging violations of Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Telesca claimed that the defendants, recipients of federal funds for affordable housing, failed to provide handicapped-accessible units and did not adequately market housing opportunities to the disabled community. Specifically, she was denied an accessible unit in the South Wind Village project. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss Telesca's Section 504 claim for monetary damages, allowing that part of the case to proceed. However, the court granted the dismissal of her claim seeking to enforce specific HUD multifamily housing regulations (24 C.F.R. 8.22-.27), finding them inapplicable to homeownership programs. Additionally, all claims against the Town of Huntington were dismissed with judgment on the pleadings granted in its favor.

Disability DiscriminationRehabilitation Act of 1973Affordable HousingFederal FundingHandicapped AccessibilityHousing DiscriminationRule 12(b)(6) Motion to DismissRule 12(c) Judgment on PleadingsHUD RegulationsHomeownership Programs
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF PETERS v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Petitioner Peters initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the New York City Housing Authority's resolution, enacted pursuant to the Gwinn Amendment, which mandated public housing tenants certify non-membership in organizations deemed subversive by the Attorney General. Peters contended the resolution violated federal constitutional rights and was arbitrary, seeking its annulment and an injunction against enforcement. After a lower court annulled the resolution and the Appellate Division reversed, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and remitted the case to Special Term. The Court avoided ruling on constitutional questions, asserting they should not be decided prematurely, and identified two non-constitutional grounds for potential disposition. These grounds included determining if the Gwinn Amendment applied to the specific housing project and if the Authority exceeded its statutory powers by expanding the scope of proscribed organizations beyond those explicitly designated as 'subversive' by the Attorney General.

Gwinn AmendmentSubversive OrganizationsHousing AuthorityTenant RightsConstitutional LawDue ProcessExecutive Order 9835Loyalty Review BoardStatutory InterpretationRemand
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 1,830 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