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
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gold-Greenberger v. Human Resources Administration

The petitioner, a candidate for a local school board, was denied access by the Human Resources Administration (HRA) to a homeless shelter to solicit signatures for his nominating petition. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially granted the petitioner access, ruling that restricting signature solicitation while allowing voter registration would cause no additional disruption. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, categorizing the homeless shelter as a 'nonpublic forum.' The court concluded that HRA's denial of access for political campaigning was a reasonable restriction, consistent with the shelter's purpose of providing temporary residential care and services, and protected the privacy interests of residents. The court noted that the petitioner could still campaign outside the shelter.

First AmendmentPublic ForumNonpublic ForumFreedom of SpeechHomeless ShelterPolitical CampaigningVoter RegistrationAccess RestrictionGovernment PropertyMootness Exception
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Austin v. Delligatti

The petitioner, Leonard B. Austin, a Democratic candidate for Supervisor of the Town of Oyster Bay, initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 4 against 'the respondents', alleging false and fraudulent campaign conduct. Austin contended that various campaign signs and literature using the word 'return' in connection with Angelo Delligatti were misleading, as Delligatti was not the incumbent. Austin sought an order for the removal of these materials, prevention of further distribution, and monetary damages for corrective advertising. The court, presided over by Justice Vincent R. Balletta, Jr., dismissed the petition, ruling that it lacked jurisdiction. The court emphasized that the Supreme Court's powers in election matters are limited by Election Law Article 16 and that an aggrieved party must first exhaust administrative remedies by filing a complaint with the State Board of Elections under the Fair Campaign Code (9 NYCRR 6201.1 et seq.). The court also clarified that it possesses no inherent equitable powers in election cases and should not intervene in policing campaign literature, even when Election Day is imminent.

Election LawFair Campaign CodeJudicial JurisdictionAdministrative ExhaustionCampaign MisrepresentationsPolitical AdvertisingFirst Amendment RightsEquitable ReliefSummary ProceedingsNew York State Elections
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2003

Credit Suisse First Boston Corp. v. Pitofsky

This case addresses whether an arbitration provision in employment agreements (Employee Dispute Resolution Program - EDRP) between a securities broker-dealer and its employees supersedes an arbitration provision in the Uniform Application for Securities Industry Registration or Transfer (Form U-4). Appellants, former employees of Credit Suisse First Boston (CSFB), were registered with the National Association of Securities Dealers (NASD) and New York Stock Exchange (NYSE) via Form U-4, which mandates arbitration for employment disputes. CSFB later introduced an EDRP, which also required arbitration but included an exception for registered representatives legally bound to arbitrate in a specific forum. After their employment was terminated, a compensation dispute arose. Appellants sought arbitration with the NYSE, while CSFB demanded arbitration before JAMS, as per their EDRP, and petitioned the Supreme Court to stay the NYSE arbitration. The Supreme Court granted CSFB's petition, but the appellate court reversed, finding that the EDRP's exception applied, and Form U-4, along with NYSE rules, required arbitration in the NYSE forum. The court also noted that prior case law holds that employment agreements cannot supersede previously executed Form U-4 agreements. Consequently, the appellate court denied CSFB's petition and directed the parties to proceed to arbitration before the New York Stock Exchange.

Arbitration agreementEmployment disputeForm U-4Employee Dispute Resolution ProgramSecurities industryNational Association of Securities DealersNew York Stock ExchangeRegistered representativesContract interpretationSuperseding agreement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Everett v. A. S. Steel Rule Die Corp.

On review of submissions pursuant to section 500.4 of the Rules of the Court of Appeals (22 NYCRR 500.4), the order was affirmed, with costs, for the reasons stated in the opinion by Justice John T. Casey at the Appellate Division. Chief Judge Wachtler and Judges Jasen, Meyer, Simons, Kaye, Alexander and Titone concurred with the decision.

Appellate ReviewCourt of AppealsJudicial ConcurrenceRules of CourtCase Law ReferencePrior Decision AffirmationJudicial ReviewAppellate Division Opinion
References
2
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02391 [193 AD3d 932]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2021

Matter of Zamir F. (Ricardo B.)

The Administration for Children's Services appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which had dismissed petitions alleging that Ricardo B. neglected Zamir F. through sexual abuse and derivatively neglected his other children, Elijah B., Jordan B., Jeremiah B., and Messiah B. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Family Court's order. It found that the petitioner had sufficiently established neglect and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence, concluding that the testimony of the petitioner's child sexual abuse expert reliably corroborated Zamir's out-of-court statements. The court also determined that the Family Court had erred in its credibility assessment, particularly in preferring the father's expert's testimony. The matter was remitted to the Family Court for a dispositional hearing and the issuance of a dispositional order.

Child NeglectSexual AbuseDerivative NeglectFamily Court Act Article 10Corroboration of Child StatementsExpert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate ReviewParental DutiesRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. Claim 230
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 1994

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

This case involves an appeal by Tribune New York Holdings, Inc. (NY Holdings) of an Administrator's denial of its motions to dismiss or for summary judgment in "Claim 230." Claim 230 originated from EEOC discrimination charges filed by employees of the New York Daily News, alleging ongoing racial discrimination in violation of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, stemming from a larger class action suit against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and various publishers. NY Holdings argued that the claimants failed to prosecute diligently under Rule 41(b) and could not substantiate their discrimination claims for summary judgment under Rule 56(c). The District Court, granting deference to the Administrator's findings akin to an arbitrator's decision, affirmed the Administrator's denial of both motions. The court concluded that the Administrator did not abuse his discretion regarding diligent prosecution and that genuine issues of material fact regarding discrimination persisted, thereby precluding summary judgment, while cautioning against further delays.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964Affirmative ActionConsent DecreeSummary JudgmentDismissal for Want of ProsecutionRule 41(b) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 56(c) Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureEEOC
References
21
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01376
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

Matter of Gesmer v. Administrative Bd. of the N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys.

This case concerns the appeal of Supreme Court Justices Ellen Gesmer et al. against the Administrative Board of the New York State Unified Court System. The petitioners challenged the Board's denial of their certification for continued judicial service past the mandatory retirement age, a decision attributed to severe budgetary constraints stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Supreme Court initially annulled the Board's determination, citing a lack of individualized review. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, holding that the Board acted within its broad authority in considering the overall needs of the court system, including economic necessity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Board's denial of certification was upheld.

Judicial CertificationMandatory Retirement AgeBudgetary ConstraintsCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactJudicial DiscretionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawAge Discrimination
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sommerich v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

In an Article 78 proceeding, several civil service employees challenged a New York City Civil Service Commission rule (Section 4.4.10) that restricted make-up examinations solely to candidates whose disabilities were incurred during municipal employment. Petitioners, who had non-work-related disabilities preventing them from taking scheduled exams, argued the distinction was arbitrary and capricious. The court, presided over by Edward J. Greenfield, J., found no rational basis for differentiating between work-related and non-work-related disabilities when determining eligibility for a make-up exam, especially since verifiability of the disability was not dependent on its origin. Consequently, the court declared the challenged rule arbitrary, unreasonable, and invalid. The matter was then remanded for individual determinations regarding the extent and genuineness of each petitioner's alleged disability.

Civil Service LawMake-up ExaminationsDisability DiscriminationAdministrative RulesJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousRational BasisPublic EmploymentEmployment BenefitsPersonnel Policy
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 24,548 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