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

Park South Tenants Corp. v. 200 Central Park South Associates, L.P.

The case involves Park South Tenants Corporation suing 200 Central Park South Associates and its directors for damages under the Condominium and Cooperative Protection and Abuse Relief Act of 1980 (15 U.S.C. § 3607 et seq.) and for breach of fiduciary duty. Plaintiff alleged that defendants, through "special developer control," interfered with its right to terminate a commercial lease for a parking garage from the lease's inception. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the statutory right to terminate the lease under Section 3607 only accrued after "special developer control" was relinquished, not at the lease's start. Since no interference with this right occurred during the legitimate two-year termination window, the federal claim was dismissed. Consequently, the pendent state law claim for breach of fiduciary duty was also dismissed due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Condominium conversionCooperative associationDeveloper controlLease terminationSummary judgmentFiduciary dutyCondominium and Cooperative Protection and Abuse Relief Act of 1980Federal court jurisdictionReal estate lawCommercial lease dispute
References
13
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Young v. Central Square Central School District

Plaintiff sued Central Square Central School District under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act, alleging discrimination due to her multiple sclerosis diagnosis and the District's failure to provide reasonable accommodations. The District moved for summary judgment, arguing collateral estoppel from a prior administrative hearing that found Plaintiff unfit to teach, and also sought to disqualify Plaintiff's counsel. The Court denied the summary judgment motion, ruling that collateral estoppel did not bar the litigation of reasonable accommodation issues. However, the motion to disqualify Plaintiff's law firm, O'Hara & O'Connell, was granted because an associate had previously worked on the District's defense in related matters, creating an appearance of impropriety. Consequently, Plaintiff must secure new legal representation or proceed pro se within ninety days.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActReasonable AccommodationMultiple SclerosisEmployment DiscriminationCollateral EstoppelAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestSummary JudgmentTeacher Disability
References
26
Case No. 11-10-00212-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Nathan Park, Individually and D/B/A Park Mowing Service v. Claude Payne D/B/A Haskell Tractor Service

Claude Payne d/b/a Haskell Tractor Service filed a breach of contract suit against Nathan Park d/b/a Park Mowing Service. After a bench trial, the court found in favor of Payne, awarding damages and attorney's fees. Park appealed, contending Haskell Tractor violated the contract by failing to provide required documentation and that the evidence was insufficient for the damages award. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, ruling that Park waived the defense of material breach by not requesting additional findings and that the evidence sufficiently supported the award of lost profits and attorney's fees.

Breach of ContractSubcontract AgreementLost ProfitsAttorney's FeesMaterial BreachWaiver of DefenseAppellate ReviewLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceTexas Court of AppealsContract Law
References
10
Case No. No. 05-11-01377-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2014

Noell, David W., City of Carrollton, Carrollton Property Standards Board, Crow-Billingsley Air Park, LTD, Henry Billingsley v. Air Park Common Area Preservation Association, Chad Maisel, Amy Eklund, and Dale Burgdorf

This case involves a dispute between homeowners of Air Park Dallas, a residential airpark community, and a real estate developer (Crow-Billingsley Air Park, Ltd. and Henry Billingsley), the Air Park Zoning Committee, and the City of Carrollton. The homeowners sued after the City ordered the airpark’s airport closed following its annexation of a portion of the airport and the passage of a regulating ordinance. The trial court initially found the ordinance facially valid but the closure order invalid, granting declaratory and injunctive relief to homeowners against the City and against the developer for breach of contract, fiduciary duty, and interference with easements. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the invalidation of the closure order but reversed the finding that the ordinance was facially valid, remanding claims concerning its constitutionality. The court also affirmed most of the jury’s findings against the developer and Zoning Committee, modifying only a specific part of the injunction.

Property RightsZoning OrdinanceEasementsBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyMunicipal LawConstitutional LawDue ProcessVagueness DoctrineAirport Regulation
References
92
Case No. 03-00-00127-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2000

Renaissance Park and Renaissance Park Apartments v. Dora Davila

Dora Davila sued Renaissance Park and Renaissance Park Apartments for libel, slander, and negligence after a former landlord allegedly provided false rental history, preventing her from purchasing a house and renting another apartment. Davila obtained a no-answer default judgment against Renaissance for $1,222,400. Renaissance appealed, arguing improper service of process under Texas Property Code § 92.003 because Davila did not plead lack of written notice of a management company or owner, nor establish a landlord-tenant relationship with Renaissance. The appellate court found service improper as Davila failed to plead strict compliance with § 92.003 and did not allege a landlord-tenant relationship had ever existed with Renaissance. The court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case for further proceedings.

restricted appealdefault judgmentservice of processlandlord-tenant lawTexas Property Codestatutory interpretationappellate procedureimproper servicepersonal jurisdictionlibel
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2011

Brooklyn Heights Ass'n Inc. v. National Park Service

The plaintiffs (Brooklyn Heights Association, Inc. et al.) filed an action against defendants (National Park Service et al.) seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent alleged violations of federal and state law, specifically regarding the Land and Water Conservation Fund Act (LWCFA). The dispute centered on the National Park Service's (NPS) 2008 and 2011 decisions to revise the "6(f)(3) boundary map" for Empire Fulton Ferry State Park, which excluded the Tobacco Warehouse and Empire Stores. Plaintiffs argued these revisions, made under the guise of correcting a "mistake," were arbitrary, capricious, and contrary to LWCFA statutes and regulations, which mandate a conversion process for such changes after a grant closes. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, finding that the administrative record belied any claim of original mistake and that NPS lacked inherent authority to bypass the required conversion procedures. Consequently, the court granted the preliminary injunction, setting aside NPS's decisions, restoring the original boundary map, and enjoining any drilling or construction on the affected structures during the litigation.

Land and Water Conservation Fund ActPreliminary InjunctionAdministrative Procedure ActNational Park ServiceEnvironmental LawHistoric PreservationFederal RegulationsPublic Land UseStatutory InterpretationAgency Action Review
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Renaissance Park v. Davila

Davila sued Renaissance Park and Renaissance Park Apartments alleging libel, slander, and negligence after a previous apartment complex, Chimney Hill, reported false rental history, preventing her from buying a house and renting an apartment. Davila sought to serve Renaissance via an on-premise manager under Texas Property Code § 92.003, resulting in a no-answer default judgment for $1,222,400. Renaissance filed a restricted appeal, arguing improper service. The appellate court agreed that Davila failed to strictly comply with § 92.003 by not pleading that she lacked written notice of the management company or owner, and by not alleging a landlord-tenant relationship ever existed between herself and Renaissance. Consequently, the court reversed the default judgment and remanded the case.

Default judgmentService of processLandlord-tenant lawProperty CodeRestricted appealStatutory constructionAppellate reviewLibelSlanderNegligence
References
25
Case No. 03-03-00111-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 2004

STATE EX REL. DEPT. OF PARKS v. Shumake

A child tragically drowned in a man-made culvert within Blanco State Park, leading her parents, Ricky and Sandra Shumake, to file a wrongful death lawsuit against the State of Texas, acting through the Texas Department of Parks and Wildlife. The Shumakes alleged the culvert constituted a special or premise defect and a nuisance. The Parks Department sought dismissal based on sovereign immunity, asserting protection under the Texas Tort Claims Act and the Recreational Use Statute. The appellate court reversed the trial court's denial of immunity for the nuisance claims but affirmed the denial for the premise defect claim, finding the Shumakes sufficiently alleged gross negligence under the duty owed to a known trespasser. The court also upheld the constitutionality and applicability of the Recreational Use Statute despite the entrance fee.

Sovereign ImmunityGovernmental ImmunityTexas Tort Claims ActRecreational Use StatutePremise DefectSpecial DefectGross NegligenceWrongful DeathAttractive NuisanceKnown Trespasser
References
0
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