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. 94-E-0952 et al.
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Energy Ass'n v. Public Service Commission

This court opinion addresses a petition by electric utilities seeking to annul orders from the New York Public Service Commission (PSC) regarding competition in the electric industry. The utilities challenged the PSC's authority to mandate restructuring plans, its rejection of full stranded cost recovery, and its compliance with the State Administrative Procedure Act. The court upheld the PSC's broad jurisdictional powers, affirming its right to encourage competitive markets and deny full stranded cost recovery when deemed not "just and reasonable" for consumers. It also found the PSC's policy statements were not "rules" requiring formal procedures. Consequently, the court denied the utilities' motion to annul the PSC's orders, affirming the PSC's discretion in transitioning to a more competitive electric market.

Electric Utility RegulationDeregulationCompetitionPublic Service CommissionRate MakingStranded CostsRetail WheelingState Administrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewLegislative Delegation
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Texas Lottery Commission v. Scientific Games International, Inc.

Scientific Games International, Inc. (SGI) and Pollard Banknote Limited, out-of-state lottery ticket manufacturers, sued the Texas Lottery Commission after its Executive Director announced a new policy in February 2002. This policy intended to consider a vendor’s anticipated economic impact on the state for contracts exceeding $100,000, potentially disadvantaging non-Texas companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment, arguing the Commission lacked statutory authority for this new policy, which they contended would unfairly favor in-state bidders. The trial court sided with SGI and Pollard, granting summary judgment in their favor. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, ruling that the Texas Lottery Commission must adhere to competitive-bidding statutes and base procurement decisions primarily on quality and price, as it lacks explicit statutory authority to consider a vendor's economic impact on the state. The court concluded that such a policy would contradict the mandate to promote competition and would create an impermissible in-state preference.

Procurement PolicyEconomic ImpactGovernment ContractsDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Agency AuthorityCompetitive BiddingIn-state PreferenceLottery Commission
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2003

Cram Roofing Co., Inc. v. Parker

Cram Roofing Company appealed a trial court judgment in favor of Dennis Parker in a libel suit. Parker sued Cram Roofing and its president, Gary Cram, after Cram Roofing's attorney sent letters accusing Parker of "voluntarily terminating" his employment and engaging in "illegal activities" by violating a non-competition agreement. The jury found Cram Roofing libeled Parker and awarded him $50,000 for mental anguish. On appeal, Cram Roofing challenged the statute of limitations, the defamatory nature of the statements, the substantial truth of "illegal activities," and the handling of the non-competition agreement's validity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Parker's libel claim was not time-barred and that the jury reasonably found Cram Roofing's statement about "illegal activities" was defamatory and not substantially true.

LibelDefamationNon-competition agreementBreach of contractStatute of limitationsRelation back doctrineMental anguishCivil Practice and Remedies CodeJury verdictSubstantial truth
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Racing Ass'n v. State of New York Racing & Wagering Board

The New York Racing Association (NYRA) filed a CPLR article 78 application seeking to exempt competitive bidding policy documents from disclosure under the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), citing Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d) regarding trade secrets and potential substantial competitive injury. NYRA challenged a determination by the State of New York Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB) that had partially denied this exemption for certain approved policy changes. The court, applying the Encore test, found that even a summarized release of these documents would constitute a disclosure of proprietary trade information. Such disclosure, especially to the press, was deemed likely to cause significant competitive disadvantage to NYRA, impacting its franchise renewal and bankruptcy reorganization efforts. Consequently, the court granted NYRA's application, vacating the NYSRWB's prior determination and ruling that the documents are exempt from FOIL disclosure.

FOILFreedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawTrade SecretsCompetitive BiddingProprietary InformationCommercial EnterpriseSubstantial InjuryRacing IndustryRegulatory Board
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Competitive Associates, Inc. v. Fantastic Fudge, Inc.

Defendant Chartered New England Corp. moved to dismiss the complaint, alleging it was time-barred and failed to state a claim, while also seeking an order for plaintiffs to post security for costs and attorney's fees. The lawsuit, brought by Competitive Associates, Inc., asserted violations of the Securities Acts of 1933 and 1934, including claims related to failure to provide a prospectus and a conspiracy to defraud in the purchase of securities from entities like Fantastic Fudge, Inc. The court largely denied the motion to dismiss, finding questions of fact regarding the discovery of untrue statements and the alleged fraudulent scheme, thereby sustaining claims under §§ 12(1), 12(2), 17(a) of the 1933 Act, and §§ 15, 10(b) of the 1934 Act. Although it denied the request for attorney's fees security, the court ordered plaintiffs to post a single original bond of $2,400 for costs, citing the considerable expenses defendants would incur during discovery.

Securities Act of 1933Securities Exchange Act of 1934Motion to DismissStatute of LimitationsFraudulent ConcealmentFailure to State a ClaimSecurity for CostsBroker-Dealer LiabilityProspectus OmissionConspiracy to Defraud
References
6
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00701
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2023

Matter of Iwuchukwu (Active Transp. Servs.--Commissioner of Labor)

The case involves an appeal by Active Transport Services (ATS) from decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board ruled that Godwin Iwuchukwu, a delivery driver for ATS, was an employee and eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, and that ATS was liable for contributions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed these decisions, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's determination of an employment relationship, based on ATS's control over drivers, and that Iwuchukwu had not voluntarily left employment without good cause, as he cited a lack of work.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery DriverLogistics BrokerSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Benefits EligibilityVoluntary Leaving EmploymentDisqualifying MisconductAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. 2016-1618 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2019

Active Care Med. Supply Corp. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

This case concerns an appeal by Active Care Medical Supply Corp. against American Transit Ins. Co. regarding first-party no-fault benefits. The plaintiff, an assignee of Luciano Ernesto, sought summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved to either dismiss the complaint or hold the action in abeyance. The defendant argued that Luciano Ernesto might be eligible for workers' compensation benefits, thus requiring a determination from the Workers' Compensation Board. The Civil Court granted the defendant's cross-motion to hold the action in abeyance. The Appellate Term affirmed this decision, reiterating that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction over the applicability of the Workers' Compensation Law and that courts should defer to the Board's determination.

No-Fault BenefitsWorkers' Compensation LawPrimary JurisdictionAbeyanceAppellate TermSummary JudgmentEligibility DisputeFirst-Party BenefitsInsurance CoverageAssignor-Assignee
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2008

6085 Strickland Associates v. Whitmore Group, Ltd.

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sued insurance brokers for negligent failure to procure insurance. The plaintiff alleged that the Genstar policy, intended for a vacant property, should have remained active alongside the Sirius policy, which covered construction-related liabilities. The Genstar policy was cancelled due to unpaid premiums. The plaintiff contended that the brokers had a duty to reinstate the policy or procure replacement coverage. However, the court affirmed the denial of the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendant brokers' cross-motion, finding no breach of duty. The plaintiff failed to pay the premium after receiving a cancellation notice, and there was no evidence of a specific request for the Genstar policy's renewal or concurrent operation with the Sirius policy. The brokers fulfilled their obligation by securing the Sirius policy.

Negligent failure to procure insuranceInsurance brokersSummary judgmentPolicy cancellationPremium nonpaymentConstruction insuranceLitigation costsDuty of brokerReplacement policyInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1994

Active Glass Corp. v. Architectural & Ornamental Iron Workers Local Union 580

Active Glass Corp. sought to enjoin a labor arbitration demanded by Iron Union and Iron Funds, proposing instead a multiparty arbitration with Glaziers and Carpenters unions and their respective funds. Iron cross-moved to compel bilateral arbitration with Active, while Glaziers and Carpenters sought dismissal of Active's petition. The court confirmed the existence of an arbitration agreement between Active and Iron for the underlying dispute. Citing recent Second Circuit precedent, the court ruled it lacked authority to compel multiparty arbitration absent the parties' explicit consent. Consequently, Active's motion for preliminary injunction and multiparty arbitration was denied, and Iron's motion to compel bilateral arbitration was granted.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputePreliminary InjunctionSummary JudgmentMultiparty ArbitrationBilateral ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictional DisputeContract Interpretation
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2007

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. St. Barnabas Community Enterprises, Inc.

This case concerns the arbitrability of disputes between an unnamed petitioner and its insured, St. Barnabas, over retrospective premiums and credits from workers' compensation policies covering 1995-1998 and 2000-2001. The Supreme Court's order, which compelled arbitration and denied St. Barnabas's cross-motion to dismiss, was modified. The appellate court affirmed arbitration for the 1995-1998 policies due to explicit arbitration clauses. However, arbitration for the 2000-2001 policies was stayed as they lacked such clauses and provided for litigation. Claims of fraudulent inducement related to the earlier policies were referred to arbitrators, as they did not specifically challenge the arbitration agreement itself.

ArbitrationWorkers' Compensation PoliciesRetrospective PremiumsInsurance DisputesPolicy InterpretationFraudulent InducementContract LawNew York CourtsAppellate DecisionJurisdiction
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 4,414 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