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
Apr 05, 1990

Trump Village Section 3, Inc. v. Sinrod

The case involves a dissenting opinion regarding a landlord-tenant dispute over an anti-pet provision in a cooperative building. Judge Friedmann dissents, arguing that the defendants, the Sinrods, openly and notoriously harbored their dog, Coco, for seven months, thereby leading the plaintiff cooperative to waive its anti-pet policy under New York City's "Pet Law." Despite the plaintiff's claim of late awareness, the judge found the evidence of frequent public dog walking compelling. The dissent concludes that ruling against the defendants would impose an unreasonable burden on tenants and defeat the purpose of the Pet Law, especially since no nuisance was cited. Therefore, the judge advocates for reversing the prior order and dismissing the complaint.

Pet LawWaiverNo-Pet PolicyOpen and Notorious HarboringCooperative HousingApartment RegulationsNew York City Administrative CodeHousing DisputeTenant RightsLandlord-Tenant Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of General Elec. Co. (Elec., Etc., Workers)

A union sought to arbitrate a claim that a company violated an anti-discrimination provision of their collective bargaining agreement by not providing pension credits for time spent on union activities beyond the hours for which the company had agreed to pay. The collective bargaining agreement allowed for arbitration of disputes over its provisions but was silent on pensions. The court ruled that no bona fide dispute existed, as the anti-discrimination clause could not be used to force a change in a separate agreement about paid union time. The court reasoned that providing pension credits for unpaid union activity would discriminate in favor of union representatives, an obligation the company did not have. Therefore, there was no valid ground for arbitration, and the order of the Appellate Division was affirmed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationPension CreditsAnti-Discrimination ClauseUnion ActivityEmployee BenefitsLabor DisputeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationNew York State Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Visa U.S.A. Inc.

This civil action, brought by the Antitrust Division of the Department of Justice against Visa and MasterCard, alleged violations of Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act concerning governance and exclusionary rules. Following an earlier decision finding exclusionary rules anti-competitive, this Opinion addresses various proposed modifications to the court's Proposed Final Judgment. The court rejected anti-discrimination provisions and the exclusion of corporate and small business cards from the remedy. It clarified provisions regarding dual issuance of debit cards, the liability of Visa International, and modified the rescission period for agreements. Additionally, the court specified that MasterCard's Competitive Programs Policy repeal applies only to issuers. The Final Judgment is set to expire in ten years.

Antitrust LawSherman ActCredit Card NetworksDebit Card ExclusivityFinal Judgment ModificationMarket CompetitionExclusionary PracticesFinancial ServicesCorporate CardsSmall Business Cards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1978

M. H. v. J. H.

This case addresses a motion by the Brewery Workers Pension Fund to vacate a payroll deduction order issued by the Family Court. The order required the Pension Fund to deduct $35 per week from a retired respondent's pension for child support, benefiting the petitioner. The Pension Fund contended that the deduction violated its plan's anti-alienation provision, was not authorized by section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, and was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court denied the Pension Fund's application, ruling that New York State law permits such deductions for child support despite pension plan restrictions and that ERISA's anti-assignment provisions do not prohibit court-ordered garnishments for support obligations, distinguishing them from voluntary assignments.

Child SupportPension GarnishmentERISA PreemptionPayroll Deduction OrderFamily LawSupport EnforcementAnti-Alienation ClausesState Law vs. Federal LawVoluntary vs. Involuntary TransferNew York Judiciary
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Needle Trades Workers' Industrial Union

The indictment charges the defendants, including the Needle Trades Workers’ Industrial Union, with violating the Sherman Anti-Trust Act by conspiring to restrain interstate trade in raw skins. The conspiracy involved preventing non-union dressers from processing skins and dealers from shipping to them, employing violent tactics such as threats, assaults, destruction of property, and the use of explosives. The court addressed whether these actions constituted a restraint of interstate commerce, differentiating between local strikes with indirect effects and direct interference with interstate trade. It concluded that the alleged prevention of New York dealers from shipping skins to New Jersey dressers constituted a direct, substantial, and intentional interference with interstate commerce. The court also affirmed that shipping goods for processing across state lines is considered interstate commerce and clarified that the National Industrial Recovery Act did not repeal the Sherman Anti-Trust Act or legalize such a conspiracy. Consequently, the demurrer challenging the sufficiency of the indictment was overruled.

Sherman Anti-Trust ActInterstate CommerceLabor UnionConspiracyDemurrerIndictmentTrade RestraintViolenceSecondary BoycottLabor Disputes
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. OAK 301894 OAK 314306
Regular
Oct 11, 2007

ROXANNE HENDRIX vs. OAKLAND UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, JT2 INTEGRATED SERVICES

This case concerns an employee terminated due to exhausting paid leave after an industrial injury, which she alleged was discriminatory under Labor Code section 132a. The Board denied reconsideration, finding the employer acted in accordance with Education Code section 45192. This specific education code provision, which mandates placing employees who exhaust leave on a reemployment list, supersedes the general anti-discrimination provisions of section 132a in this context.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 132adiscriminationindustrial injurycustodianterminationpaid leavetemporary disabilityreemployment listEducation Code section 45192
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Neurological Assocs., P.C. v. Highmark Blue Shield & Reed Smith LLP

Plaintiff Long Island Neurological Associates, P.C. sued Highmark Blue Shield and Reed Smith LLP for under-reimbursement of surgical services under ERISA. The case involved a 4-year-old patient who received complex out-of-network surgery from Dr. Schneider due to the unavailability of in-network providers. Highmark significantly under-reimbursed the billed amount and denied multiple appeals, failing to provide requested documentation. The patient's parents assigned their rights to the Plaintiff, leading Defendants to move for dismissal, asserting an anti-assignment provision in their Administrative Service Agreement (ASA). The Court denied the motion, ruling that the ASA is not an ERISA plan document and thus its anti-assignment clause is not binding on plan participants, confirming Plaintiff's standing. The Rule 12(b)(6) motion was also denied as abandoned.

ERISAMotion to DismissAnti-assignment clauseAdministrative Service Agreement (ASA)Plan DocumentSubject Matter JurisdictionStandingUnder-reimbursementOut-of-network providerHealth Insurance
References
27
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01898
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2024

Karl Reeves, C.E.I.N.Y. Corp. v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.

This case involves a defamation lawsuit filed by Karl Reeves and his companies against Associated Newspapers Ltd. and reporter Anneta Konstantinides, stemming from an online article about Reeves' contentious divorce, custody battle, and criminal charges. Defendants sought dismissal under New York's anti-SLAPP law, arguing the article concerned matters of public interest and plaintiffs' claims lacked a substantial legal basis. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding the alleged defamatory statements privileged and the tort claims legally deficient. Crucially, the court reversed the denial of attorneys' fees, ruling that the anti-SLAPP law's mandatory fee provisions applied to the continued litigation and that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial basis for their claims. The case was remanded for the sole purpose of calculating these mandatory attorneys' fees.

Anti-SLAPP LawDefamationAttorneys' FeesPublic InterestSubstantial Basis in LawCPLR 3211(g)Appellate ProcedureFreedom of SpeechNew York CourtsMedia Law
References
42
Showing 1-10 of 1,481 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