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

Massachusetts Mutual Life Insurance v. Avon Associates, Inc.

This case addresses a motion by defendants mortgagors to vacate an ex parte order appointing a receiver during a mortgage foreclosure action. Defendants asserted that the lack of notice for the receiver's appointment violated CPLR 6401 and their Federal constitutional due process rights, citing Fuentes v Shevin. The court found that New York's Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law § 1325 (subd 1) permits ex parte receiver appointments when the mortgage contract explicitly waives notice. Furthermore, the court distinguished the present case from Fuentes, concluding that the sophisticated business operators involved had knowingly and voluntarily waived their right to notice, akin to the circumstances in Overmyer Co. v Frick Co. Based on these findings, the court affirmed the validity of the ex parte order and denied the defendants' motion to vacate the appointment of the receiver.

Mortgage ForeclosureReceiver AppointmentEx Parte OrderDue ProcessWaiver of NoticeContractual WaiverCPLRReal Property Actions and Proceedings LawConstitutional LawBusiness Disputes
References
9
Case No. 14-35443
Regular Panel Decision

In re Weidenbenner

The Debtors initiated a motion alleging that Wells Fargo violated the automatic stay by placing an administrative freeze on their bank accounts after they filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. This freeze led to a bounced check and a $25 penalty. The court ruled that Wells Fargo's administrative freeze was indeed a willful violation of the automatic stay, rejecting the bank's arguments regarding compliance with turnover provisions or set-off rights. Furthermore, the court found that the Debtors had constitutional and statutory standing to pursue damages. As a result, the Debtors were awarded $25.00 in actual damages, along with costs and attorney's fees.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic StayStay ViolationAdministrative FreezeWells FargoChapter 7Damages AwardedWillful ViolationTurnover ProvisionDebtor Rights
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levitt v. Board of Collective Bargaining

The City of New York promulgated Personnel Policy and Procedure Bulletin number 401-86, requiring city employees to disclose and repay debts as a condition for appointment or promotion. Three unions challenged this policy before the Board of Collective Bargaining, asserting it constituted an improper labor practice as it unilaterally changed terms of employment without collective bargaining. The Board sided with the unions, ruling the city had acted improperly. The City then petitioned the court to set aside the Board's determination. The court granted the City's petition, finding the Board's decision unreasonable and arbitrary, concluding that the policy concerned management's fundamental right to set employee qualifications and maintain integrity, and was therefore exempt from mandatory collective bargaining. The court also critiqued the Board's balancing test regarding employee privacy rights.

Improper Labor PracticeCollective BargainingManagerial PrerogativeDebt CollectionEmployee QualificationsPublic EmployeesPrivacy RightsAdministrative CodeJudicial ReviewPERB
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Union Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds v. Employer-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance & Annuity Funds

A dispute arose between the Employer-Appointed Trustees and Union-Appointed Trustees of the Tapers Industry Insurance and Annuity Funds concerning delinquent employer contributions. An arbitrator issued an award, which the Employer-Appointed Trustees sought to confirm and the Union-Appointed Trustees cross-moved to vacate. Judge Walker of the District Court reviewed the arbitration award, noting the arbitrator based his findings on prior judicial decisions rather than independently interpreting the collective bargaining agreement. The Court determined that the arbitrator failed to apply the contract as bargained for by the parties, thus exceeding his authority. Consequently, the Court vacated the arbitration award and remanded the dispute for proceedings consistent with its order.

Arbitration AwardVacate Arbitration AwardConfirm Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust FundsDelinquent ContributionsRes JudicataManifest Disregard of LawScope of Judicial ReviewLabor Dispute
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C&D TECHNOLOGIES, INC. v. International Ass'n of Heat and Frost Insulators & Asbestos Workers

This case involves cross-motions to vacate and confirm a labor arbitration award. Plaintiff C & D Technologies sought to set aside an award where Arbitrator Sheila Cole found the company violated its collective bargaining agreement by changing the "six week average" pay calculation. Defendant Local sought to confirm the award. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, reviewed whether the arbitrator exceeded her powers under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10(a)(4). The court found that the arbitrator did not exceed her powers, properly interpreted the ambiguous contract language, and her decision was rational. Consequently, the court denied the motion to set aside, granted the cross-motion to confirm the arbitration award, and dismissed the petition.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeFederal Arbitration ActContract InterpretationManifest Disregard for LawVacaturConfirmation of AwardSix Week Average PayWage Calculation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 1995

Wood v. Irving

A Rochester police officer, temporarily assigned as a detective for over 18 months, was granted a permanent appointment to detective based on Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c). The City of Rochester challenged this, arguing the law violated the New York Constitution's article V, § 6, which requires merit-based appointments by competitive examination where practicable. The Supreme Court granted the officer's petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed. However, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that Civil Service Law § 58 (4) (c) is unconstitutional because it mandates a permanent appointment without a legislative determination of the impracticability of competitive testing, thus violating the constitutional merit and fitness requirement. The Court held that despite good intentions, the statute effectively allowed a preferential appointment, circumventing the competitive examination process applicable to others seeking the detective rank.

Civil Service LawConstitutional LawMerit and Fitness ClauseCompetitive ExaminationPolice PromotionDetective AppointmentLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewImpracticability of TestingArticle V Section 6
References
40
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. ADJ4414084 (MON 0351669) ADJ725833 (MON 0351670)
Regular
Aug 30, 2018

IRMA ARZOLA vs. SHERWOOD MANAGEMENT, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a lien claimant's petition to set aside a stipulation and for reconsideration. The petition was deemed "skeletal" for failing to adequately detail grounds, cite evidence, or articulate legal principles. Additionally, the petition was dismissed because proof of service on adverse parties was not provided, violating Labor Code and Appeals Board Rules.

Petition to Set AsidePetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionProof of ServiceAdverse PartiesLabor Code § 5902Labor Code § 5905Cal. Code Regs. § 10842Cal. Code Regs. § 10846Cal. Code Regs. § 10852
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Franco v. Jay Cee of New York Corp.

An apprentice elevator mechanic was injured by an elevator counterweight while working on an elevator modernization project at a building owned by Jay Gee of New York Corp. The plaintiff sued Jay Gee and TJK, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), which incorporated 12 NYCRR 23-2.5 (b) (3) regarding the need for partitions. After a jury found Jay Gee not liable, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. The Supreme Court reversed the jury's verdict, finding that the trial court erred by allowing defense witnesses to provide misleading expert testimony on the interpretation of Industrial Code § 23-2.5 (b) (3). The case was remanded for a new trial, with the court noting that instructions on the defense of impossibility might be required.

Elevator AccidentConstruction Site SafetyLabor LawIndustrial CodeJury VerdictEvidentiary ErrorExpert TestimonyStatutory InterpretationRemandNew Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2006

In re the Arbitration between Mays-Carr & State Farm Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied her petition seeking to set aside an arbitration award and to obtain a new hearing before a different arbitrator. The petitioner contended that the arbitrator either exceeded his power or imperfectly executed it, and also alleged partiality, referencing CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (ii), (iii). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, asserting that an arbitrator's power is exceeded only when the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or explicitly surpasses enumerated limitations. It found the arbitrator's determination, which denied the petitioner an award for economic loss beyond basic economic loss, to be rational and supported by the record, especially given the absence of a serious injury finding. Furthermore, the appellate court dismissed the petitioner's claims of arbitrator bias as speculative, stating that past adverse rulings against her counsel do not inherently establish a lack of impartiality.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardArbitrator ImpartialityExceeded PowerImperfect ExecutionSerious InjuryEconomic LossAppellate ReviewNew York State
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 6,789 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