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
Oct 15, 1979

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Am-Lon Knit Goods Finishing Corp.

This proceeding involved an assignee for the benefit of creditors seeking judicial determination of priority among various creditor claims. The claims included those from the Federal Government, preferred wage claims, the New York State Tax Commission for income withholding taxes, the Industrial Commissioner for unemployment insurance contributions, the Director of Finance of the City of New York for various city taxes, and two insurance companies for workers' compensation insurance premiums. The court reconsidered an earlier decision and clarified that Labor Law § 574 is applicable and controlling in this context, establishing parity between New York State and City tax claims. Consequently, these tax claims were granted priority over the workers' compensation insurance premiums. The decision also distinguishes insolvency proceedings from decedent's estate cases, which are governed by SCPA 1811.

InsolvencyCreditor PriorityTax ClaimsUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' CompensationAssignee for Benefit of CreditorsState TaxesCity TaxesLabor LawSCPA
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the General Assignment for the Benefit of Creditors of Well Bilt Box Spring Corp.

An assignee for the benefit of creditors moved to disallow a claim for priority filed by the United Furniture Workers Insurance Fund. The fund sought $480 for unpaid group welfare insurance premiums, which accrued from September 1947 to April 1948 under a collective bargaining agreement. The assignee contended that the Debtor and Creditor Law section 21-a did not provide priority for such claims, arguing it applied to employee-contributed pension plans, not employer-paid insurance. The court referenced conflicting precedents from Matter of Seaboard Furniture Mfg. Corp. (Frey) and Matter of Hollywood Commissary, Inc. (Weintraub). Adopting the view of Justice Walsh, the court ruled that this was a contract matter between the employer and union, not a claim for wages, and noted the claim was made by the insurance carrier rather than the union or employees. Consequently, the court disallowed the claim for priority and granted the assignee's application to settle their account.

Priority ClaimAssignee for CreditorsInsurance FundCollective Bargaining AgreementWelfare InsuranceEmployer ContributionsDebtor and Creditor LawSection 21-aWage ClaimContract Dispute
References
2
Case No. No. 53
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2019

Pangea Capital Management, LLC v. John R. Lakian

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a certified question from the Second Circuit concerning the priority of a spouse's interest in real property after a divorce judgment. Pangea Capital Management, LLC, a judgment creditor of John Lakian, sought to attach property, arguing its docketed judgment had priority over Andrea Lakian's undocketed divorce judgment, which awarded her a share of the property. The Court clarified that an equitable distribution of marital property upon divorce does not transform the spouse into a judgment creditor of the other. Consequently, CPLR 5203 (a), which governs priority among judgment creditors, was deemed inapplicable, thus affirming that Andrea's vested interest was not subordinate to Pangea's attachment.

Equitable distributionMarital propertyDivorce judgmentJudgment creditorCPLR 5203DocketingReal propertyAttachmentCertified questionSecond Circuit
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. v. Public Utilities Commission of California (In Re 360networks (USA) Inc.)

The Official Committee of Unsecured Creditors of 360networks (USA) Inc. (Debtors) initiated an adversary proceeding against the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California (CPUC) seeking to avoid certain fee payments as preferential transfers under the Bankruptcy Code. The CPUC moved to dismiss the action, asserting Eleventh Amendment sovereign immunity and arguing the court lacked jurisdiction. Judge Allan L. Gropper denied the CPUC's motion, concluding that the court holds in rem jurisdiction over the debtor's property in a preference action. The Court determined that the exercise of this jurisdiction would not offend state sovereignty, citing various forms of potential relief available, including the disallowance of claims by other California state instrumentalities.

Bankruptcy LawSovereign ImmunityEleventh AmendmentIn Rem JurisdictionPreference ActionMotion to DismissPublic Utilities CommissionCalifornia Environmental Quality ActDebtor-Creditor RelationsFederal Jurisdiction
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Schatz Fed. Bearings Co., Inc.

The International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America (UAW) sought to withdraw from the Creditors’ Committee in the bankruptcy estate of Schatz Federal Bearings Co., Inc. The Creditors’ Committee opposed the withdrawal, aiming to preserve its appeal of an earlier ruling that deemed the UAW eligible to serve. The court granted the UAW's application to withdraw, citing that a creditor's willingness to serve is a key factor in committee composition and that compelling service is not justified when the creditor no longer has an interest in the case, especially since the debtor's business has ceased and its assets were liquidated. The court also noted the UAW's pension rights were guaranteed by ERISA and it had negotiated a new contract with the asset buyer, making its position on the committee academic.

BankruptcyCreditors' CommitteeUnion RepresentationMotion to WithdrawMootness DoctrineERISADebtor LiquidationJudicial DiscretionAdequate RepresentationVoluntary Service
References
2
Case No. 07-19-00350-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2021

Michelle Latray as Receiver of the Assets of Clifton Boatright for the Benefit of Judgment Creditors W.L. Roberts, Dana Roberts, Erin Leigh Roberts, and Katelyn Robert Gonzales v. Colony Insurance Company D/B/A Colony Specialty Insurance Co.

Michelle Latray, acting as a receiver for judgment creditors of Clifton Boatright, appealed a summary judgment ruling which found Colony Insurance Company had no duty to defend or indemnify Boatright. Latray argued the trial court erred because Colony had a duty to defend and indemnify Boatright for damages caused by dumping debris and damaging fences, asserting the acts were negligent rather than intentional, or at least the fence damage was. The Court of Appeals, Seventh District of Texas at Amarillo, denied Latray's motion for rehearing. It affirmed the trial court's judgment, concluding that Boatright's act of dumping debris was intentional, thus not an 'occurrence' covered by the policy. Although the damage to fencing was negligent, the policy's auto exclusion applied to the use of the dump truck and trailer, negating Colony's duty to defend or indemnify for those damages as well.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentAuto ExclusionIntentional TortsNegligenceProperty DamageDebris DumpingReceiver
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dawson v. Krolikowski

The Monroe County Supreme Court addressed the distribution of $25,854.72 in surplus funds from the court-ordered sale of a marital residence, deposited with the Monroe County Clerk. Plaintiff sought an income deduction order for support enforcement against defendant Joseph Stanley Krolikowski, claiming priority over other judgment creditors, and disputed the defendant's homestead exemption. The court ruled that the surplus principal is personal property, not "income" under CPLR 5241/5242, and must be distributed to creditors based on the perfection order of their liens. However, the interest earned on these funds *is* considered "income", for which the plaintiff's income deduction order takes priority. The court also denied the defendant's claim for a homestead exemption, as he had voluntarily ceased occupying the residence over three years prior.

Support ArrearsEquitable DistributionMarital PropertyExecution LienCourt Order SaleJudgment EnforcementIncome DefinitionPriority of LiensExempt AssetsCPLR Article 52
References
3
Case No. Proof of Claim No. 149
Regular Panel Decision

In re DeWitt Rehabilitation & Nursing Center, Inc.

The Debtor, DeWitt Rehabilitation and Nursing Center, Inc., moved to expunge the priority portion of a claim filed by United Staffing Registry, Inc. The Claimant sought priority status for social security, Medicare, and unemployment payments made for temporary employees it provided, citing 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5). Bankruptcy Judge Allan L. Gropper analyzed the application of § 507(a)(5) in light of case precedents, including Howard Delivery Service, Inc. The Court determined that the priority under § 507(a)(5) is intended to protect contributions for a debtor's direct employees, and the temporary employees were not employees of DeWitt. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was sustained, disallowing the priority and reclassifying the entire claim as a general unsecured claim, while also denying the Debtor's request for legal fees.

Bankruptcy LawPriority ClaimsEmployee Benefit Plans11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(5)Temporary EmployeesUnsecured ClaimsIndemnificationLegal FeesClaim ExpungementStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Birmingham Nashville Express, Inc.

The case addresses whether Travelers, a workers' compensation insurance carrier, is entitled to priority for its prepetition unpaid workers' compensation premiums under 11 U.S.C. § 507(a)(4). Chief Judge George C. Paine, II, ruled that these premiums do not qualify as contributions to an "employee benefit plan" as defined by the statute. The court emphasized that priority status is disfavored and should only be granted where explicitly intended by Congress. It concluded that workers' compensation premiums are not voluntary "contributions," nor do they constitute a "plan" primarily benefiting employees, and they do not "arise from services rendered." Consequently, the court sustained the debtor's objection, denying priority status to Travelers' claim.

Bankruptcy LawWorkers CompensationPriority ClaimsEmployee BenefitsStatutory InterpretationUnsecured CreditorsInsurance PremiumsSixth Circuit PrecedentDebtor-Creditor LawFederal Bankruptcy Code
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital

This Memorandum-Decision and Order addresses an objection to a priority claim filed by the New York State Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division, against The Albert Lindley Lee Memorial Hospital, a Debtor in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The claim, number 179, seeks priority status for reimbursement of unemployment insurance compensation benefits paid to the Debtor's former employees. The Debtor contended that these "payments in lieu of contributions" were not taxes and should be treated as general unsecured claims, while the State argued for priority under Bankruptcy Code section 507(a)(8)(D) or (E). Applying the Lorber test, the court determined that the reimbursement liability constitutes a "tax" due to its involuntary, public-purpose nature imposed under state power, and it met additional criteria of universal applicability without disadvantaging private creditors. Consequently, the Debtor's objection was overruled, and the Claim was allowed as a priority excise tax claim under 11 U.S.C. section 507(a)(8)(E).

BankruptcyPriority ClaimUnemployment InsuranceExcise TaxEmployment TaxNonprofit OrganizationState ClaimDebtor ObjectionSection 507(a)(8)(E)Lorber Test
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 313 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