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. 81 Civ. 3958 (KTD)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 1982

In Re Pension Plan for Emp. of Broadway Maint.

This case involves a dispute between the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation over the termination date of Broadway's employee pension plan. The PBGC initiated the lawsuit to be appointed statutory trustee, declare the plan terminated, and sought a termination date of March 26, 1981, while Broadway argued for a retroactive date prior to December 31, 1979. Judge Kevin Thomas Duffy acknowledged the appointment of the PBGC as trustee and the plan's termination, with the sole issue being the precise termination date. After considering the interests of the participants, the PBGC, and Broadway, and applying legal precedent, the court ultimately set December 5, 1980, as the earliest valid termination date. This date was chosen because it marked when the PBGC filed its original Proofs of Claim, signaling its clear intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee BenefitsBankruptcyPBGCStatutory TrusteeRetroactive Termination DateJudicial TerminationParticipant InterestsFinancial Distress
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Broadway Maintenance Corp.

This case involves the Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) and the bankrupt Broadway Maintenance Corporation (Broadway) disputing the termination date of Broadway's non-union employee pension plan. PBGC initiated the lawsuit to become the statutory trustee and sought to establish March 26, 1981, as the termination date. Broadway argued for an earlier, retroactive date. The court, guided by ERISA and the interests of the plan participants, rejected both parties' proposed dates. The judge formulated a test for involuntary terminations and ultimately established December 5, 1980, as the official termination date, citing the date PBGC first formalized its intent to terminate the plan.

ERISAPension Plan TerminationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActInvoluntary TerminationTermination Date DisputeBankruptcyPlan Participants' InterestsStatutory TrusteeFiduciary DutyPension Benefit Guaranty Corporation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McSpedon v. Profile Electric, Inc.

The petitioner, Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated April 29, 1987. The order had denied the union's motion to stay arbitration and granted Profile Electric, Inc.'s cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose under a collective bargaining agreement where Profile Electric alleged the union failed to provide sufficient qualified labor, hindering a city contract. The Supreme Court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that given a broad arbitration clause, the dispute fell within the contract's ambit, emphasizing the state's policy favoring arbitration. The appellate court affirmed the decision, holding that the merits of the claim and issues of contract termination were matters for the arbitrators.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeStay ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationUnion ObligationsEmployer-Union RelationsQueens County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnan Associates v. 196 Owner's Corp.

This case involves a dispute between Barnan Associates (plaintiff) and 196 Owner’s Corp. (defendant) regarding the termination of a Master Commercial Lease. Plaintiff sought equitable relief under the Condominium and Cooperative Protection and Abuse Relief Act (Abuse Relief Act), challenging the termination. Plaintiff argued that the lease predated the Act's effective date and that the termination notice was untimely. The court, presided over by District Judge Conner, granted Barnan Associates' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Act only applies to contracts entered into after October 8, 1980, whereas the lease was from August 31, 1979. Additionally, the court found the termination notice ineffective because it was issued more than two years after the relinquishment of special developer control, which occurred on September 14, 1989. Consequently, the defendant's state law counterclaims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Condominium ConversionCooperative HousingAbuse Relief ActLease TerminationSummary Judgment MotionDeveloper ControlStatutory InterpretationTimelinessFederal JurisdictionState Law Counterclaims
References
12
Case No. ADJ10268949
Regular
Nov 23, 2016

ELOY DELA TORRE FERNANDEZ vs. MERCHANT'S LANDSCAPE SERVICES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of a prior decision that barred the applicant's claim due to a post-termination filing defense. The applicant claimed exceptions to this defense, arguing he received pre-termination treatment and that his date of injury, under Labor Code § 5412, occurred after his termination. The WCAB found insufficient evidence to decide the pre-termination treatment exception and remanded the case to clarify the applicant's date of injury under § 5412, as this date's post-termination status would be an exception to the defense. The prior order was rescinded and the case returned for further proceedings.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderLabor Code Section 3600(a)(10)Post-termination DefenseCumulative InjuryDate of InjurySection 5412Compensable DisabilityTrier of Fact
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp. v. Pension Committee of Pan American World Airways, Inc.

The Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) petitioned the court to terminate underfunded retirement benefit plans associated with Pan American World Airways, citing an unreasonable increase in potential long-run liability as per 29 U.S.C. § 1342(c). The Pension Committee of Pan American World Airways and several unions intervened, opposing both the termination and the proposed July 24, 1991 termination date. The court reviewed PBGC's termination decision under the Administrative Procedure Act's 'arbitrary and capricious' standard, ultimately finding it justified by substantial evidence of the plans' underfunding and the company's inability to meet its contribution obligations. The court dismissed arguments regarding internal PBGC guidelines, stating they do not have the force of law and were, in any event, adhered to due to 'extraordinary circumstances'. For the termination date, the court applied the Broadway Maintenance test, requiring 'constructive notice' sufficient to extinguish beneficiary reliance, and determined July 31, 1991, as the appropriate date, based on widespread public awareness of PBGC's petition by that time. The court therefore granted the petition for termination.

Pension plan terminationPBGCERISAUnderfunded plansTermination dateConstructive noticeAdministrative Procedure ActArbitrary and capricious standardDistrict CourtPan American World Airways
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1990

In re Shaquanna C. Forestdale, Inc.

The natural mother appealed two orders from the Family Court, Kings County, dated August 20, 1990, which terminated her parental rights and committed her children to Forestdale, Inc., and the Commissioner of Social Services of the City of New York. The appeal also reviewed a December 21, 1989, fact-finding order that found the mother permanently neglected her children by failing to plan for their futures. The court affirmed the orders, finding that the petitioning agency, Forestdale, Inc., made diligent efforts to strengthen the parent-child relationships, including providing visitation, sign-language interpreters, and counseling for the hearing-impaired mother. Expert testimony from the children’s psychotherapists indicated that terminating parental rights was in the children's best interests, as mere contact with the mother would be detrimental to the children's progress in foster care.

Parental Rights TerminationChild NeglectFamily CourtDiligent EffortsBest Interests of ChildrenFoster CareHearing Impaired ParentSocial Services LawPermanent NeglectAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 6,666 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