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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Rockland Shelter Animals, Inc. v. Mullen

Friends of Rockland Shelter Animals, Inc. ("FORSA") sued Samantha Mullen and the Humane Society of the United States ("HSUS") for tortious interference with a prospective business advantage. FORSA was negotiating with Rockland County to operate an animal shelter, but their contract resolution was defeated after Mullen sent a letter to the County Executive critiquing FORSA's proposal and defending the incumbent shelter, Hi Tor. FORSA alleged Mullen's letter contained false statements. Defendants counterclaimed, alleging FORSA's suit was a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation ("SLAPP suit") under N.Y. Civ. Rights Law § 70-a. The court granted defendants' motion for judgment on the pleadings, ruling that defendants' lobbying activities were protected by the First Amendment under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, and the "sham exception" did not apply. The court also dismissed the defendants' counterclaim for attorney's fees and damages, finding FORSA's suit was not entirely without merit.

Tortious InterferenceProspective Business AdvantageSLAPP SuitFirst AmendmentNoerr-Pennington DoctrineSham ExceptionFreedom of SpeechPetition ClauseMotion for Judgment on PleadingsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local 25, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board sought a temporary restraining order against Local 25, a labor union, alleging unfair labor practices against Sarrow-Suburban Electric Co., Inc. and Brunswick Hospital Center, Inc. The charges, filed on September 14, 1964, claimed Local 25 violated Section 8(b)(4)(i)(ii)(D) of the National Labor Relations Act by attempting to force employers to assign work to its members. A preliminary investigation by the Board found reasonable cause to believe the charges were true, supporting the request for injunctive relief under Section 10(J) of the Act. Evidence showed Local 25 demanded Brunswick Hospital break its contract with Sarrow and assign work to its members, subsequently initiating a work stoppage through picketing. The Court found reasonable cause for the Director's belief and granted the temporary restraining order.

unfair labor practicetemporary restraining orderlabor disputeNational Labor Relations Actpicketingwork stoppagelabor unioninjunctionDistrict Courtcollective bargaining
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Keeffe v. Helsby

This is a special proceeding under CPLR Article 78. The matter is remanded to the Director of the Public Employment Relations Board of the State of New York. The remand is for a determination on whether the petitioner has made a sufficient showing of interest to require an election for a representative bargaining unit of "blue collar workers" employed by the Town of Babylon. The court emphasized that the employees, not PERB or the Town, are to decide on union representation, and the director cannot usurp this decision. Further investigation and a determination based on Civil Service Law and PERB Rules and Regulations are required.

Public Employment Relations BoardBargaining UnitLabor RelationsEmployee RepresentationTaylor LawCivil Service LawSpecial ProceedingArticle 78RemandUnion Certification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blyer v. Pratt Towers, Inc.

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) filed a petition for a temporary injunction against Pratt Towers, Inc. The Regional Director sought immediate interim reinstatement for employees refused re-employment after a strike and required Pratt to bargain in good faith with Local 32B-32J, Service Employees International Union. Pratt had denied reinstatement, citing an illegal strike and employee misconduct. The court found reasonable cause to believe Pratt committed unfair labor practices by refusing to reinstate employees and by bargaining in bad faith. The court concluded that injunctive relief was just and proper to restore the status quo and prevent further erosion of the Union's effectiveness. The petition for injunctive relief was granted, ordering Pratt to reinstate employees, bargain with the Union, and post the order.

Collective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticeInjunctive ReliefStrike MisconductReinstatementGood Faith BargainingLabor DisputeNational Labor Relations ActUnion DecertificationTemporary Injunction
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

U. S. Pillow Corp. v. McLeod

The U. S. Pillow Corporation (plaintiff) initiated legal action to prevent the Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) from conducting a representation election involving its employees, as petitioned by Local 140. Although the election proceeded, the ballots were impounded. The court considered three motions: Local 140's request for intervention, U. S. Pillow's plea for an injunction to continue ballot impoundment, and the Regional Director's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The court granted Local 140's intervention. The core of U. S. Pillow's argument centered on alleged violations of its constitutional rights and administrative due process by the NLRB's decision to permit a single-employer unit election despite existing multi-employer agreements. The court, however, deemed the plaintiff's constitutional claims to be "transparently frivolous" and found no merit in any of its contentions. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the plaintiff's request for an injunction pendente lite was denied.

Labor RelationsNLRBRepresentation ElectionJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingMulti-employer UnitConstitutional RightsDue ProcessFirst Amendment
References
17
Showing 1-10 of 363 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