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
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

New York City Coalition to End Lead Poisoning, Inc. v. Vallone

This case addresses whether the New York City Council adhered to the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) when enacting Local Law No. 38 (1999), intended for lead paint abatement. The City Council issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant adverse environmental impact. However, the Court of Appeals found this declaration insufficient, specifically noting a lack of reasoned explanation for excluding lead dust from the hazard definition and removing six-year-old children from the law's protections. This non-compliance with SEQRA's procedural mandates led to the nullification of Local Law 38, thereby reinstating Local Law 1 (1982). The Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision and remitted the case, encouraging the involved parties to collaborate in safeguarding New York City's children from lead exposure.

Lead paint abatementEnvironmental lawSEQRA complianceLocal Law 38Local Law 1Negative declarationPublic health concernsChildhood lead poisoningAdministrative proceduresNew York City Council
References
21
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald v. City of New York

The plaintiff sustained personal injuries while working on a dry dock at the Brooklyn Navy Yard. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions for summary judgment, asserting the case did not fall under admiralty jurisdiction. On appeal, the higher court reversed this finding, concluding that a maritime nexus and situs existed, thus invoking substantive maritime law. This preemption by federal maritime law rendered the strict liability provisions of New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 inapplicable. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss claims based on these labor laws, while affirming the denial of dismissal for claims under common law negligence and Labor Law § 200.

Admiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawLabor LawPreemptionPersonal InjuryDry DockSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtNew YorkNegligence
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1984

Gotbaum v. Lewis

This case concerns a dispute over the regulatory authority of the New York State Superintendent of Insurance regarding employee welfare funds administered unilaterally by municipal unions but financed by the City of New York. Plaintiffs, trustees of these funds, sought a declaration that they were not bound by Insurance Law article III-A, citing decades of legislative intent and administrative practice that excluded unilaterally administered funds from its scope. Despite a history of failed legislative attempts to expand jurisdiction, the Superintendent of Insurance moved to compel registration. The court ultimately modified a prior order, denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby declaring that the Insurance Department possesses regulatory jurisdiction over these funds under Insurance Law article III-A, § 37-a.

Employee welfare fundsRegulatory jurisdictionInsurance Law Article III-AUnilaterally administered fundsCollective bargainingMunicipal unionsLegislative intentStatutory interpretationAdministrative overreachSummary judgment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fuchs v. Austin Mall Associates, LLC

The plaintiff appealed a Supreme Court order granting summary judgment to defendants, dismissing causes of action under Labor Law §§ 241(6), 200, and common-law negligence. The decedent was electrocuted while replacing an elevator ceiling on property owned and/or managed by the defendants. The Appellate Division found that the decedent's work constituted "alteration" under Labor Law § 241(6) and that the plaintiff's failure to assert a specific Industrial Code provision was not fatal. The court also determined that a triable issue of fact existed regarding the defendants' notice of the dangerous condition for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order was reversed, and the defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied.

Wrongful DeathConscious Pain and SufferingSummary JudgmentAppealLabor Law § 241(6)Labor Law § 200Common-Law NegligencePremises LiabilityElectrocution AccidentElevator Repair
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc. v. United States (In Re Coyne Electrical Contractors, Inc.)

This case addresses whether a New York Lien Law "trust fund" beneficiary’s claim to priority payment under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d) is preempted by ERISA. The applicant, The Joint Industry Board of the Electrical Industry and its Participating Funds (JIB), sought priority payment from funds held by the debtor, asserting a claim for unpaid benefits. The defendant, A-J Contracting, Inc. (A-J), challenged this, arguing ERISA preemption, specifically that the Lien Law provided an "alternative enforcement mechanism" forbidden by ERISA. The court reviewed federal preemption doctrine and ERISA's objectives, ultimately concluding that Section 71(2)(d) does not create such a mechanism as it confirms existing employer liability rather than shifting it. Therefore, the court found that ERISA does not preempt JIB's assertion of priority rights under Lien Law Section 71(2)(d).

ERISA preemptionLien Law trust fundpriority disputeunpaid employee benefitsbankruptcy estatedebtor liabilityconstruction subcontractsfederal supremacystatutory interpretationcollective bargaining agreement
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2006

Amantia v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor's worker, sued defendants for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence after falling from a cargo truck while unloading forms. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting defendants' motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. It found Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as there was no significant elevation risk, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, based on specific industrial code violations, were also dismissed due to their inapplicability to the facts.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from ElevationWorker SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 16,052 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