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
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. 14-17-00012-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2018

SVT, L.L.C. and Robert C. Orr v. Seaside Village Townhome Association, Inc.

SVT, L.L.C. and Robert C. Orr, Jr. (the Developers) appealed a trial court's judgment regarding cross-motions for summary judgment in favor of Seaside Village Townhome Association, Inc. (the HOA). The dispute centers on the 'Repsdorph Property,' initially designated as a common area in the subdivision's Declaration of Covenants but later removed by the Developers' amendment and re-plat. The HOA sued for trespass to try title and declaratory judgment, asserting the property was conveyed to them and the Developers' amendment was invalid. The Developers counterclaimed for quiet title and declaratory relief, arguing they retained ownership and had the right to amend the Declaration. The Court of Appeals reformed the trial court's order to delete an award of attorney's fees but affirmed the judgment, finding the property was conveyed to the HOA by the Declaration and the Developers no longer had the right to unilaterally amend.

Real Estate LawProperty DisputeHomeowners AssociationDeclaratory JudgmentTrespass to Try TitleSummary JudgmentCovenants, Conditions and RestrictionsSubdivision LawProperty ConveyanceAmendment of Declaration
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Real Estate Board of New York, Inc. v. City of New York

The New York Appellate Division found that the City of New York fully complied with environmental laws (SEQRA and CEQR) when issuing a negative declaration for a proposed zoning amendment in the Garment Center. The amendment aimed to preserve industrial loft space from conversion to office space. The court determined that the Department of City Planning and Department of Environmental Protection had thoroughly reviewed potential environmental impacts and reasonably concluded that the zoning change would not have significant effects requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. Consequently, the court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment that had mandated an EIS and dismissed the consolidated action.

Zoning AmendmentEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACEQRNegative DeclarationGarment CenterLand UseAppellate DecisionUrban PreservationEconomic Impact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Livery Owners Coalition v. State Insurance Fund

This case addresses the constitutionality of a Workers’ Compensation Law amendment defining livery car base owners as employers of independent owner-operators for workers' compensation purposes. The Livery Owners Coalition sought an injunction against the State Insurance Fund and Workers’ Compensation Board to prevent enforcement of this statute, while the defendants sought dismissal and a declaration of the statute's constitutionality. The court, deferring to the agencies' interpretation, found their stance reasonable in expanding workers' compensation coverage and ensuring operator protection. It also determined that the statute and its application have a rational basis and do not violate equal protection. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for an injunction was denied, and the defendants' application to dismiss the complaint and declare the statute constitutional was granted.

ConstitutionalityWorkers' Compensation LawLivery IndustryIndependent ContractorsEmployer DefinitionStatutory InterpretationEqual ProtectionInjunctionRational Basis ReviewState Agencies
References
7
Case No. 06 Civ. 12878(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

International Securities Exchange, LLC v. S & P Dow Jones Indices, LLC

International Securities Exchange, LLC and International Exchange Holdings, Inc. (ISE) sued S & P Dow Jones, LLC (Dow Jones) for a declaration of right to list options on S&P 500 and DJIA indices without a license, claiming federal copyright preemption. The lawsuit was stayed pending resolution of an identical case in Illinois state courts. The Illinois courts ruled in favor of Dow Jones, affirming its intellectual property rights and concluding that ISE's actions constituted misappropriation, a decision affirmed by the Illinois Appellate Court and upheld by the US Supreme Court's denial of certiorari. Upon returning to the current court, ISE sought to amend its complaint, while Dow Jones moved to dismiss based on res judicata. The court granted Dow Jones' motion, ruling that the Illinois judgment was binding under the Full Faith and Credit Act and Illinois preclusion rules, thus barring ISE from relitigating the preemption issue. ISE's motion to amend its complaint was denied as futile.

Copyright PreemptionRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFull Faith and Credit ActIntellectual Property RightsStock Market IndicesOptions TradingUnfair CompetitionTortious InterferenceIllinois State Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 1989

Ginsburg Development Corp. v. Town Board

Ginsberg Development Corp. (GDC) filed a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Town Board of Cortlandt's amendment to a "steep slopes ordinance" and its negative SEQRA declaration. The amendment significantly reduced the allowable housing units on GDC's property. The central issue was whether the Town Board adequately considered the socioeconomic impacts, particularly on "affordable housing," during its environmental review. The court determined that the Town Board failed to take a "hard look" at these impacts and did not provide a reasoned elaboration for its decision. Consequently, the court annulled both the negative SEQRA declaration and the amendment to the ordinance.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAZoning OrdinanceSteep SlopesAffordable HousingSocioeconomic ImpactNegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Land Use PlanningJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of St. Lawrence v. Shah

This case involves appeals from three judgments concerning Medicaid reimbursements for "overburden expenditures" incurred by the County of St. Lawrence prior to 2006. The County sought to annul determinations by the Department of Health (DOH) denying its claims and a declaration that a 2012 legislative amendment (L 2012, ch 56, § 1, part D, § 61) was unconstitutional. The Supreme Court had partially granted the County's applications, annulling DOH's determinations and finding the 2012 amendment unconstitutional. This appellate court modified that decision, declaring the 2012 amendment constitutional but establishing a six-month grace period for social services districts to submit their claims. Furthermore, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's order directing DOH to identify, verify, and pay the total unpaid pre-2006 overburden expenditures, emphasizing DOH's mandatory and ministerial obligation.

Medicaid ReimbursementsOverburden ExpendituresConstitutional LawStatutory InterpretationRetroactive LegislationGrace PeriodStatute of LimitationsDue ProcessMandamusSocial Services Districts
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desmond-Americana v. Jorling

This case involves five CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions challenging amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, which mandated multiple pesticide notification devices. The petitioners challenged these regulations, promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, arguing the Commissioner exceeded his authority and that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to comply with statutory procedures. The Appellate Court found two main issues: first, DEC failed to adhere to the mandatory time limits for filing regulations under the State Administrative Procedure Act, rendering the amendments ineffective. Second, DEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by issuing negative declarations without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), despite clear evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Consequently, the court annulled all amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, declaring them invalid.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawRegulatory ComplianceStatutory InterpretationState Administrative Procedure ActState Environmental Quality Review ActEnvironmental Impact StatementPesticide RegulationsIntegrated Pest ManagementAnnulment of Regulations
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perino v. Cohen (In Re Cohen)

The plaintiff sought to amend their complaint, originally filed on June 17, 1987, which objected to the dischargeability of a debt under Section 523(a)(6) of the Bankruptcy Code. The proposed amendment aimed to increase compensatory damages from $5,000 to $10,000 and introduce a new claim for $20,000 in punitive damages, alleging violations of the New York Human Rights Law. The defendant opposed the motion, arguing bad faith, undue prejudice due to the expanded monetary claims, and the legal insufficiency of the punitive damages under New York law or its being time-barred. Citing the liberal amendment policy of Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), the court determined that the increase in damages or addition of a punitive claim did not automatically constitute bad faith or prejudice. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to amend the complaint was granted, with the court allowing the plaintiff to pursue the colorable punitive damages claim, leaving the statute of limitations defense to be addressed later.

Motion to Amend ComplaintBankruptcy DischargeabilityPunitive Damages ClaimCompensatory DamagesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)New York Human Rights LawCollateral EstoppelLegal Sufficiency of PleadingStatute of Limitations DefenseBad Faith and Prejudice
References
32
Case No. 03-14-00738-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2015

Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.// RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC v. RLJ II-C Austin Air, LP RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP And RLJ Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC// Elness Swenson Graham Architects, Inc.

The Appellees and Cross-Appellants, RLJII-C Austin Air, LP; RLJ II-C Austin Air Lessee, LP; and RJL Lodging Fund II Acquisitions, LLC, filed an unopposed motion to amend their Appellees' Brief. The amendment seeks to correct a sentence fragment on page 5 of their brief by adding ten omitted words. The omission occurred due to an error during the final preparation of the brief, where a phrase was accidentally deleted during a copy-and-paste operation and was not detected until after the brief was filed. Counsel for the Appellant and Cross-Appellee is not opposed to the requested amendment. The motion requests that the court grant leave to amend and accept the Amended Appellees' Brief for filing.

Motion to Amend BriefSentence Fragment CorrectionAppellate ProcedureUnopposed MotionBrief AmendmentCivil ProcedureContract LawAttorney's FeesStanding to SueAssignment of Contract
References
168
Showing 1-10 of 5,485 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