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

Video Aid Corp. v. Town of Wallkill

The case discusses whether Video Aid Corp. should be reimbursed for an unconstitutional $27,000 water sewer tap-in fee paid to the Town of Wallkill to obtain a building permit. This dissenting opinion, authored by Bellacosa, J., argues that the Appellate Division's order for reimbursement was correct, stating that the payment was made under legal duress. The dissent highlights that the Town unlawfully exacted the fee, impeding Video Aid's business expansion, and that Video Aid's immediate lawsuit constituted "authentic resistance." It draws on precedents affirming that municipalities cannot manipulate responsibilities for revenue generation and that involuntary payments, even without formal protest, warrant recovery, ultimately advocating for affirmance of the reimbursement order.

Unconstitutional feeLegal duressInvoluntary paymentBuilding permitMunicipal feesReimbursementTown of WallkillVideo Aid Corp.Business expansionAppellate Division
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2011

Colortone Camera, Inc. v. New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board

Colortone Camera, Inc. challenged the reclassification of its employees from Workers' Compensation Classification Code 8017 to 8018, which resulted in significantly increased insurance rates. The company's appeal to the Superintendent of Insurance, affirming the New York State Compensation Insurance Rating Board's determination, was reviewed in this hybrid CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed the Superintendent's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence that Colortone's business was primarily wholesale. Additionally, Colortone sought a declaratory judgment that portions of the Workers Compensation & Employers Liability Insurance Manual were unconstitutional for vagueness. This aspect of the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Westchester County, for severance and further proceedings, as it was not properly before the appellate court.

Workers' CompensationInsurance RatesBusiness ReclassificationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeSubstantial Evidence
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 03, 2004

Ulloa v. Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp.

Plaintiff Demme Ulloa initiated legal action against Universal Music and Video Distribution Corp., Island Def Jam Music Group, Roc-A-Fella Records, LLC, and Shawn Carter, alleging copyright infringement, false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, unjust enrichment, joint authorship, and an accounting of sales. Ulloa claimed to have spontaneously created a vocal counter-melody for Shawn Carter's song "Izzo (H.O.V.A.)" which was later used without proper credit or compensation. The Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the claims of joint authorship and Lanham Act violations, dismissing them. However, it denied both parties' motions for summary judgment regarding copyright infringement, citing unresolved factual disputes concerning originality, work-for-hire status, and implied license. Additionally, the defendants' motions to dismiss the unjust enrichment claim and to bifurcate the trial were denied.

Copyright InfringementLanham ActUnjust EnrichmentJoint AuthorshipSummary JudgmentWork for HireImplied LicenseMusical CompositionSound RecordingOriginality
References
31
Case No. ADJ12084466
Regular
Oct 08, 2019

ROBERT CLARK vs. COUNTY OF PLACER, Permissibly Self-Insured, Administered By INTERCARE HOLDINGS INSURANCE SERVICES

Applicant claimed a psyche injury from his employment as a deputy sheriff, alleging multiple events including witnessing a civilian suicide. The WCJ ordered defendant to produce dashboard camera footage of the suicide after applicant complied with Public Records Act (PRA) procedures, and allowed applicant to then inform the QME of the video's contents. Defendant sought removal, arguing the order bypasses the PRA's requirement for agencies to determine record disclosability and causes irreparable harm. The WCAB granted removal, rescinded the order, and returned the matter for the WCJ to ensure proper PRA procedures are followed, allowing proper determination of record disclosability before release.

Petition for RemovalGovernment CodePublic Records ActDashboard Camera VideosIndustrial InjuryPsycheDeputy SheriffIrreparable HarmDue ProcessQualified Medical Evaluator
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re S. Children

This child protective proceeding was initiated by The Society for Prevention of Cruelty to Children against a father accused of sexually abusing his young son, Scott, in the presence of his older son, Jonathan. When Jonathan, an alleged eyewitness, became reluctant to testify in his father's presence, the petitioner requested his testimony be taken in camera. The court denied this application, citing the respondent's due process right to confront witnesses and finding insufficient evidence of a pathological impact on the child. The court emphasized the absence of statutory provisions for in camera testimony in such cases and suggested legislative consideration for future procedures to balance child protection with parental rights.

Child Protective ProceedingIn Camera TestimonyDue Process RightsRight to ConfrontationChild WitnessSexual Abuse AllegationsFamily Court ActWitness ReluctanceBalancing of InterestsExclusion of Respondent
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05331
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2016

People v. Bonie

This case involves an appeal by nonparty News 12 The Bronx, L.L.C., and its representative Dina Sforza, against an order compelling compliance with a subpoena for unaired video footage. The People sought the footage from an interview with defendant Nasean Bonie, who was indicted for the murder of Ramona Moore. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the People's motion to compel, directing an in camera review and denying News 12's cross-motion to quash the subpoena. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this order. It directed disclosure only of specific portions of the video footage where Bonie discusses killing the victim or their relationship, finding that the People met the necessary showing under New York's Shield Law for these parts, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision. The court clarified that the trial judge need not issue further findings.

Subpoena enforcementJournalistic privilegeShield LawNonconfidential materialIn camera reviewCircumstantial evidenceMurder indictmentVideo footageAppellate reviewFreedom of the press
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 1987

Promovision Video Display Corp. v. Intech Leasing Corp.

This case concerns an appeal where Promovision Video Display Corporation sued Intech Leasing Corporation for breach of contract and fraud. The dispute arose from a series of integrated agreements, including a sales agreement with an arbitration clause between Promovision and Fujitsu Systems of America, Inc., and a financing agreement between Promovision and Intech. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied Intech's motion to compel arbitration and granted Promovision's cross-motion to stay arbitration. The appellate court reversed this order, ruling that the Federal Arbitration Act applied and that the arbitration clause, incorporated by reference into the financing agreement, governed the claims between Promovision and Intech. Consequently, the parties were directed to proceed to arbitration, and the action was stayed.

ArbitrationBreach of ContractFederal Arbitration ActIntegrated ContractsAssignmentFinancing AgreementSales AgreementMotion to Compel ArbitrationStay of ActionAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. ADJ7253570
Regular
May 20, 2015

MICHELLE FELDHAKE vs. HOLLYWOOD VIDEO, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a workers' compensation applicant, Michelle Feldhake, and defendants Hollywood Video and Liberty Mutual Insurance Company. The defendants petitioned for removal of an order that closed discovery and set the case for trial, arguing it would cause irreparable harm by preventing them from obtaining vocational evidence. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the order, and returned the case to the trial level due to ambiguity regarding the timing of the applicant's vocational expert's report. This action allows defendants to potentially obtain and present their own vocational evidence.

Petition for RemovalDiminished Future Earning CapacityVocational ExpertClosing DiscoveryDue ProcessIrreparable HarmVocational EvidenceMandatory Settlement ConferenceFindings Award and OrderHome Healthcare
References
2
Case No. MON 0333042 MON 0333043
Regular
May 01, 2008

JOSE LUIS CASTANEDA vs. SAMY'S CAMERA, INC., ZENITH INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Jose Luis Castaneda's claim for temporary disability benefits following two work-related injuries from Samy's Camera, Inc. The Appeals Board affirmed a prior award limiting temporary disability to two years from commencement, finding that concurrent injuries result in a concurrent application of the two-year cap under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1). This decision aligns with the appellate court's ruling in *Foster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.*, which held that the 104-week/2-year limitation runs concurrently when independent injuries cause simultaneous temporary disability.

Labor Code section 4656temporary disability indemnitypetition for reconsiderationtwo-year capFoster v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.aggregate disability paymentsconcurrent periodsspecific injurycumulative injuryWCJ
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanford v. Plaza Packaging Corp.

Denise Hanford filed an action against Morton Landowne, a co-employee, alleging intentional torts after he purportedly concealed a video camera to record her in a locker room. Hanford received workers' compensation benefits for the incident. The lower courts dismissed her action, citing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. However, the Court of Appeals, referencing *Maines v Cronomer Val. Fire Dept.*, ruled that the exclusivity provision does not protect an employee whose intentional misconduct stems from personal motives and is outside the scope of employment. The court distinguished this from cases involving employers as defendants, affirming that an employee can pursue a claim against a co-employee for an intentional tort even if workers' compensation benefits have been accepted. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order was reversed, and Hanford's complaint against Landowne was reinstated.

Intentional TortCo-employee LiabilityWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityScope of EmploymentSexual HarassmentPrivacy ViolationEmotional DistressNew York LawCourt of AppealsReversal of Lower Court
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 237 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