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. Adv. Proc. No. 16-01074 (SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

Core Litigation Trust ex rel. Kravitz v. Apollo Global Management, LLC (In re AOG Entertainment, Inc.)

The CORE Litigation Trust, as assignee of Debtors’ pre-petition secured lenders, initiated a proceeding in California State Court against a group of defendants. The Trust alleged inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contracts. The action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Trust moved for mandatory abstention and remand to the California State Court. The Court granted the motion, finding it had non-core, 'related to' jurisdiction and that the action could be timely adjudicated in the state court.

Mandatory abstentionRemandBankruptcy jurisdictionNon-core jurisdictionRelated to jurisdictionTimely adjudicationState law claimsFederalismComityChoice of law
References
75
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. New York State & Local Retirement System

Petitioner, a maintenance worker at Carthage Central School District, was injured after a ladder slid off an elevator roof while he was repairing masonry. He applied for disability retirement benefits under Retirement and Social Security Law article 15, which was initially granted by a Hearing Officer but later denied by the Comptroller. The core issue revolves around whether the incident constituted an 'accident' for disability purposes. This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated to review the Comptroller's determination. The court found that the slipping of the ladder or plywood was a sudden and unexpected event, constituting an accident as a matter of law. Therefore, the court annulled the Comptroller's determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental InjuryLadder FallElevator ShaftMaintenance WorkerComptroller Decision ReviewCPLR Article 78 ProceedingWorkplace AccidentRetirement and Social Security LawJudicial Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fisher v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In Re Pied Piper Casual, Inc.)

Pied Piper Casuals, Inc., a ladies apparel manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy which was converted to Chapter 7, with Robert Fisher appointed as Trustee. The Trustee initiated an action against the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (I.C.S.P.) to recover $1,407,208 for theft losses under an insurance policy. I.C.S.P. argued the claim was untimely and moved to remove the proceeding to the district court, which denied the motion as premature, directing a determination by the bankruptcy court on whether it was a core proceeding. The bankruptcy court ruled that the Trustee's action seeking insurance proceeds is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), equating it to a turnover proceeding, and emphasizing the nexus between such actions and efficient bankruptcy administration.

BankruptcyCore ProceedingInsurance PolicyTurnover ProceedingTheft LossChapter 7 BankruptcyDebtor's EstateFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictionCourt Reference
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2001

Fishman v. Mills

Petitioners Michael Fishman, president of a union, and American Building Maintenance Company of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their CPLR article 78 petition as time-barred. The case stemmed from the award of a cleaning contract to respondent Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. as a preferred source provider, displacing American Building's workers. Petitioners challenged Fedcap's qualification, alleging it employed individuals not 'severely' disabled as required by State Finance Law § 162. The Supreme Court found the proceeding untimely, ruling that the challenge to Fedcap's preferred source provider status became final and binding by August or September 1999, well before the October 2000 commencement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding the core challenge was to Fedcap's initial qualification, not later contract approvals, thus rendering the proceeding time-barred.

Administrative LawTimelinessStatute of LimitationsCPLR Article 78Preferred Source ProviderDisabled EmploymentGovernment ContractsPublic ProcurementUnion RightsContract Award
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
Case No. DC-14-07255
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 04, 2015

in Re: Michelin North America, Inc.

This case is an Original Mandamus Proceeding arising from a product liability lawsuit in the 134th Judicial District Court of Dallas County, Texas. Plaintiffs, Samuel Medina, Obdulia Medina, Natalye Medina, and Navil Gibson, are suing Michelin North America, Inc. and Jose Bustillo d/b/a Mundo Cars following a catastrophic tire failure that left Obdulia Medina quadriplegic. The core of the dispute involves extensive discovery requests by the plaintiffs for Michelin's internal documents, such as aspect specifications, technical notes, and adjustment data, essential for proving alleged design and manufacturing defects. Michelin resisted these requests, citing trade secret privilege and arguing overbreadth. The court issued several rulings, largely granting motions to compel discovery (with narrowed scope), to depose Michelin employees, and to designate responsible third parties. However, a stay was granted for the production of aspect specifications and financial information, pending potential mandamus review, while Michelin's motion to bifurcate the trial for punitive damages was also granted.

Product LiabilityTire DefectManufacturing DefectDesign DefectDiscovery DisputeTrade SecretsMandamusPunitive DamagesBifurcated TrialTire Aging
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Centers

St. Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York, a Chapter 11 debtor, objected to a $48.75 million claim filed by the New York State Department of Labor under the N.Y. WARN Act. The core issue was whether the bankruptcy court or an administrative proceeding by the Department of Labor was the appropriate forum to liquidate this claim. The Department of Labor argued for its administrative proceeding, citing the 'police powers' exception to the automatic stay, and also requested a determination by the Commissioner on certain issues. The Debtors contended the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction due to the proof of claim being filed. The court found it had core jurisdiction to determine the allowance and amount of the claim, declining to defer to another forum, especially given multiple related WARN claims. The court also denied the Debtors' request for an injunction, stating it was not properly brought as an adversary proceeding.

BankruptcyChapter 11WARN ActJurisdictionClaim LiquidationAutomatic StayPolice Powers ExceptionInjunctionCore ProceedingProof of Claim
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Fanning v. DiNapoli

The petitioner, a registered nurse, suffered a shoulder injury during a mandatory self-defense training in December 2005 while working for the Department of Disability Services. She applied for disability retirement benefits, with ordinary benefits approved but enhanced benefits denied by the Comptroller, who overruled a Hearing Officer's favorable decision. The core issue was whether the incident constituted an 'accident' under Retirement and Social Security Law. The court reviewed the Comptroller's determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. It was found that the injury arose from a routine job duty with inherent risks, thus not qualifying as an accident for enhanced benefits. Consequently, the Comptroller's denial of enhanced disability retirement benefits was upheld, and the petitioner's petition was dismissed.

Disability benefitsenhanced disabilityaccidentjob dutiesinherent riskself-defense trainingshoulder injuryComptrollerCPLR Article 78administrative review
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 9,786 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