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

Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioners challenged the Broome County Legislature's negative declaration of environmental impact for a proposed public safety facility, which included a 400-bed jail and other county offices in the Town of Dickinson, Broome County. The proposed complex was classified as a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), presumptively requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court initially annulled the negative declaration but denied injunctive relief. This appellate court affirmed the annulment of the negative declaration and further directed respondents to investigate and discuss the storage of petroleum/chemical products and sewage treatment capacity within the required EIS, modifying the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also upheld the denial of petitioners' request for injunctive relief, noting that SEQRA mandates environmental review completion before any construction.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementPublic Safety FacilityBroome CountyCPLR Article 78Cross AppealsAnnulmentInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reliance Insurance v. Garsart Building Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment involving insurance coverage disputes. The Supreme Court of Rockland County declared that Reliance Insurance Company of New York properly disclaimed coverage under its general liability policy issued to Garsart Building Corp. and was not required to defend or indemnify Garsart in an underlying personal injury action. The court also ruled that Planet Insurance Company was not obligated to defend or indemnify Garsart under its workers' compensation policy. Appellants J and J Associates, Louis C. Pell, County of Rockland Industrial Development Authority, and Garsart Building Corp. appealed this judgment. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding the appellants failed to provide a valid excuse for not complying with notice requirements and that Horace Hall was an independent contractor, not an employee of Garsart.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageNotice RequirementsIndependent ContractorEmployers' LiabilityAppellate AffirmanceDeclaratory JudgmentPersonal Injury LitigationPolicy InterpretationInsurance Disputes
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This opinion addresses a declaratory judgment action brought by Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Corporation (collectively, "the Garden") against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 3"). The Garden sought a declaration that they are not liable to Local 3 for contribution or indemnification concerning a judgment previously entered against Local 3 in antecedent civil rights litigation (Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Anderson v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.). In those prior actions, Local 3 was found liable for intentional discriminatory hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court, presided over by Judge Sand in the Southern District of New York, granted the Garden's motion for summary judgment. The decision ruled that federal law governs, precluding contribution and indemnification under Title VII based on Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers. Furthermore, even if contribution were theoretically available under § 1981, it would not lie for an intentional tortfeasor, and any such claim would be defeated by a release given to the Garden by the original plaintiffs. Indemnity was also denied on similar grounds, emphasizing that an intentional tortfeasor cannot escape liability for deliberate wrongdoing.

Declaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationCivil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationIntentional TortFederal Common Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Preserver Insurance v. Ryba

This is a declaratory judgment action where an unnamed plaintiff insurance company appealed an order denying its motion for summary judgment and granting Northern Assurance Company of America's cross-motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff sought a declaration that it was not obligated to defend and indemnify East Coast Stucco & Construction, Inc., in an underlying personal injury action. The Supreme Court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact against Northern's prima facie showing that Insurance Law § 3420 (d) applied, rendering the plaintiff’s disclaimer untimely. Additionally, Northern established that the injured party was subject to Workers’ Compensation Law, precluding the application of the policy’s liability limit. The court remitted the matter for entry of a judgment declaring the plaintiff is obligated to defend and indemnify East Coast.

Insurance LawDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewTimely DisclaimerInsurance Coverage
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2008

Roman Catholic Diocese of Rockville Centre v. Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London

The plaintiff, a self-insured employer, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, concerning a breach of contract and declaratory judgment action. The plaintiff sought a declaration that certain workers' compensation assessments were covered under excess insurance policies issued by the defendants. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the policy language unambiguously excluded such assessments. The appellate court affirmed this decision, remitting the matter to the Supreme Court for a formal judgment declaring the assessments are not covered by the insurance policies.

Declaratory JudgmentBreach of ContractSelf-Insured EmployerExcess InsuranceWorkers' Compensation AssessmentsPolicy InterpretationSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewNassau CountyStatutory Mandates
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tishman Construction Corp. v. Arc Electrical Construction Co.

This case concerns a declaratory judgment action brought by Morgan Trust Company and Tishman Construction Corporation (plaintiffs) against Northbrook Property & Casualty Insurance Company (defendant). Plaintiffs sought a declaration that Northbrook was obligated to defend and indemnify them in an underlying action involving an injured worker, Joseph Hickey, who fell on a construction site. The initial motion for summary judgment by plaintiffs was denied by the IAS Court. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the plaintiffs. The court determined that prior rulings based on res judicata established Northbrook's obligation, and that a late notice of claim argument by Northbrook lacked merit. Consequently, Northbrook was declared obligated to defend and indemnify the plaintiffs.

Summary judgmentDeclaratory judgmentInsurance obligationIndemnificationAdditional insuredRes judicataLate notice of claimAppellate reviewConstruction accidentContract law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nationwide Mutual Insurance v. Erie & Niagara Insurance

This case involves a declaratory judgment action between two insurers concerning insurance coverage. The defendant insurer appealed a judgment that granted the plaintiff insurer's motion for summary judgment. The judgment declared that the defendant's farmowner's insurance policy must cover the liability of its insured and their employee arising from an accident involving a 1983 Dodge pick-up truck. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding that the policy unambiguously covered the liability. This was based on the truck's registration and exclusive use for farm purposes, and the interpretation that the public highway where the accident occurred fell within the 'insured premises' definition of the policy.

Insurance CoverageFarmowner's PolicyDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentVehicle and Traffic LawPolicy InterpretationInsured PremisesFarm VehicleAppellate ReviewContract Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1998

In re Harney

The case concerns an appellant declared an incapacitated person under Article 81 of the Mental Hygiene Law, leading to the appointment of both a Guardian of the Person and a Guardian of the Property. The Supreme Court, New York County, issued an initial order and judgment on September 16, 1996, followed by an order on May 22, 1997, denying the appellant's motion to vacate the prior order and judgment. The appellate court unanimously affirmed both the 1996 order and judgment and the 1997 order. The court found that the initial judgment was a proper exercise of discretion given the appellant's inability to manage daily needs and uncooperative behavior. Furthermore, it concluded that the appellant was not prejudiced by any potential non-compliance with Mental Hygiene Law § 81.11 (e), especially since the guardians were subsequently discharged after a second hearing.

Incapacitated PersonGuardianshipMental Hygiene LawAppellate DecisionAffirmationMotion to VacateProperty GuardianPersonal GuardianDiscretionary RulingUncooperative Behavior
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Halsey Drug Co. v. Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastics & Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815

Plaintiff Halsey Drug Co., Inc. (Halsey) filed an action against Defendant Drug, Chemical, Cosmetic, Plastic and Affiliated Industries Warehouse Employees, Local 815 (Local 815) under the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act and the Labor Management Relations Act. Halsey sought a declaration from the court regarding the arbitrability of certain issues related to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) after closing its Brooklyn facility and moving some operations to Congers, New York. Local 815 demanded that Halsey apply the CBA to the new Congers facility and offer employment to laid-off Brooklyn employees, subsequently filing for arbitration. Halsey argued that the claims arose after the CBA's expiration and should be handled by the National Labor Relations Board, not arbitration. The court, applying established labor law precedents regarding arbitrability, denied Halsey's motion for summary judgment and granted Local 815's motion, ruling that the dispute is arbitrable because the underlying facts arose before the CBA's expiration and involve contract interpretation.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentContract InterpretationUnion RepresentationFederal Declaratory Judgment ActLabor Management Relations ActPost-expiration ClaimsArbitrability
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 9,219 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