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

Regensdorfer v. Central Buffalo Project Corp.

The Supreme Court erred in denying the cross motion of defendant Central Buffalo Project Corporation and third-party defendant United States Shoe Corporation, doing business as Casual Corner, for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. An out-of-possession landlord, Central Buffalo, was not liable as it relinquished control, was not contractually obligated to repair nonstructural defects, and did not have notice of the condition. The loose stairway treads were deemed a non-structural defect. Additionally, Casual Corner was contractually obligated to indemnify Central Buffalo. The amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, effective September 10, 1996, was deemed prospective only and not applicable to this action.

Landlord LiabilityPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation LawStructural DefectNotice of DefectAppellate ReviewOut-of-Possession LandlordLease Agreement
References
15
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1985

United States v. $100 in United States Currency

The United States initiated an in rem forfeiture action against $100,000 in U.S. currency, alleging it originated from illegal drug transactions. Claimants Jose Martinez-Torres and Nancy Medina asserted the funds were legitimate lottery winnings. The government sought summary judgment, arguing issue preclusion from a prior Nebbia bail hearing where Medina's lottery claim was found incredible. The Court granted partial summary judgment for the government, establishing probable cause for forfeiture. However, it denied the application of offensive collateral estoppel for full summary judgment, citing the distinct procedural environment and limited scope of the Nebbia hearing, and ruled that claimants are entitled to a plenary trial to prove the legitimate source of the funds.

ForfeitureDrug Trafficking ProceedsCollateral EstoppelIssue PreclusionSummary JudgmentProbable CauseIn Rem ForfeitureBail HearingDue Process ConcernsPuerto Rican Lottery
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Blasio v. United States

This action was brought under the Federal Tort Claims Act by Jean and Clifton DeBlasio against the United States for personal injuries sustained by Jean at the Gateway Sports Center. The plaintiffs alleged negligence due to protruding cement nodules on a sidewalk. The United States moved for summary judgment, asserting it could not be sued for the acts or omissions of its independent contractors. The court found that Shields and Dean Concessions, Inc., which operated the Sports Center, was an independent contractor and that the government lacked day-to-day supervisory control. Consequently, the Federal Tort Claims Act did not apply, and the motion for summary judgment was granted, finding the United States immune from suit.

Federal Tort Claims ActSovereign ImmunityIndependent ContractorSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryNegligenceGovernment LiabilityConcessionaireNational Park ServiceControl Test
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. District Council of New York City

This civil RICO action involves a motion by the government to hold the District Council of New York City and Vicinity of the United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America and its president, Peter Thomassen, in contempt of a 1994 consent decree. The central issue is whether collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) enacted in 2001, which modified job referral rules (specifically the "50/50 Rule" and the "Request System"), violated the consent decree by not providing prior notice to the government. The government argued that these changes diluted fair job assignments. The District Council contended that the consent decree's notice requirements did not extend to CBAs and that the changes were made to enhance union contractors' competitiveness. The court denied the government's motion, concluding that while the consent decree's notice provision was broad, it explicitly excluded CBAs from review by court officers, rendering the decree's applicability to future CBAs at best ambiguous and thus not a basis for a contempt finding.

RICO ActionLabor OrganizationConsent DecreeContempt MotionCollective Bargaining AgreementsJob Referral Rules50/50 RuleRequest SystemUnion GovernanceOrganized Crime
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrenko v. United States

Plaintiff John Petrenko filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against the United States, alleging civil rights violations including negligent beating, false arrest, and false imprisonment stemming from a 1988 incident with United States Park Police officers. Petrenko sought $10 million in damages. The Government moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court ruled that the United States is immune from § 1983 suits and that prior state court findings of probable cause precluded the false arrest and imprisonment claims. Petrenko's negligent beating claim was dismissed due to insufficient evidence, and his state claim for vehicle impoundment costs was also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as adequate state remedies exist.

42 U.S.C. § 1983Civil Rights ViolationFalse ArrestFalse ImprisonmentNegligent BeatingSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityCollateral EstoppelProbable CauseFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers v. General Electric Co.

The Union, consisting of United Electrical, Radio and Machine Workers of America and five of its locals, sued General Electric Company under the Taft-Hartley Act to compel arbitration of various grievances. Both parties filed motions for summary judgment. The central issues revolve around whether the 1956-1960 collective bargaining agreement provides for compulsory arbitration and if the grievances fall within its scope. The court found the contract language ambiguous, requiring extrinsic evidence for proper interpretation. Consequently, the court denied both motions for summary judgment, citing the presence of genuine issues of material fact that warrant a full trial.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitrationTaft-Hartley ActSummary JudgmentLabor LawContract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceAmbiguityFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureGrievance Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pathmark Stores, Inc. v. United Food & Commercial Workers Local 342-50

Pathmark, an employer, initiated a lawsuit against the United Food and Commercial Workers Local 342 50, a labor union, due to an ongoing labor dispute. The core of Pathmark's complaint alleged breach of contract and various tortious acts by the Union, stemming from disagreements over the interpretation and application of their collective bargaining agreement (CBA). The central legal question before the court was whether Pathmark's claims were subject to mandatory arbitration under the CBA, as the Union contended that the grievance and arbitration procedures were exclusively for employees. Applying the strong presumption of arbitrability in labor law, the court meticulously analyzed Article XXIII of the CBA, concluding that its broad language encompassed employer-initiated disputes despite the primary focus on employee grievances. Consequently, the court granted the Union's motion to dismiss Pathmark's federal contract claims, compelling arbitration, and subsequently declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Labor disputeArbitrationCollective bargaining agreementEmployer claimsUnion rightsGrievance procedureArbitrabilitySecond CircuitMotion to dismissFederal court jurisdiction
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Strehle v. United States

Seaman Richard Frances Meyer died on a United States Navy vessel due to entrapment in ropes from a malfunctioning winch. His administratrix, Loretta Strehle, sued the United States under the Public Vessels Act, Jones Act, and Death on the High Seas Act, alleging negligence and unseaworthiness. The court found the United States liable, citing the uncorrected defects in the winches and their "deadman" safety feature. The court rejected the claim of Meyer's contributory negligence. Plaintiff was awarded $28,600 for loss of income to Meyer’s dependents (his four sisters) and $50,000 for Meyer's pain and suffering prior to death, totaling $78,600.

Admiralty LawJones ActDeath on the High Seas ActPublic Vessels ActMaritime NegligenceVessel UnseaworthinessWrongful DeathPain and SufferingLoss of SupportComparative Negligence
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 2,173 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