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

In re Bridget Y.

The dissenting opinion argues that the New York Family Court improperly exercised temporary emergency jurisdiction over the subject children, Colleen Y. and Kelly Y. While agreeing that New Mexico was the children's home state and a custody proceeding was already pending there, the dissent contends that the strict criteria for an emergency, requiring 'imminent and substantial danger,' were not met. The dissent points out that the New Mexico court had already assumed jurisdiction, transferred custody to an Ohio family, and issued a protective order against the parents, thereby eliminating any immediate risk of abuse or parental control. The opinion concludes that the Family Court's order creates jurisdictional conflict rather than eliminating it, advocating for the reversal of the orders and dismissal of the proceeding for lack of jurisdiction over the children under 18.

Child CustodyUCCJEAEmergency JurisdictionNeglect ProceedingsInterstate JurisdictionNew Mexico LawNew York Family CourtHome State RuleImminent HarmParental Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hawkes v. Bennett

The petitioner, a psychiatric social worker, had her probationary appointment with the State Office of Mental Health (OMH) terminated. She appealed to the State Civil Service Commission (CSC), alleging OMH failed to comply with 4 NYCRR 4.5 (a) (5) (in) regarding observation and advisement of her status. CSC declined jurisdiction, determining OMH had substantially complied. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking to declare CSC's declination of jurisdiction arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the petitioner had no enforceable legal right to compel CSC to exercise jurisdiction and that CSC's interpretation of its own regulations was entitled to deference.

Probationary employmentTermination appealCivil Service CommissionJurisdiction declinationCPLR Article 78Administrative lawAgency interpretationJudicial reviewProcedural defectsState Office of Mental Health
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Barnett v. Callaway

A claimant, a chef manager, sustained work-related injuries in Florida in May 2011 while working for an uninsured employer. Despite the injury occurring out-of-state, the claimant, a New York resident, filed a workers' compensation claim in New York. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found sufficient contacts with New York to establish subject matter jurisdiction. The Uninsured Employers’ Fund (UEF) and the employer sought review, which was initially declined for untimeliness/service issues. Subsequently, the Board exercised discretion to address the employer's application on its merits and affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's decision regarding jurisdiction. The employer then appealed this decision. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion of significant contacts with New York, thus establishing subject matter jurisdiction.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionOut-of-state injuryNew York residencyUninsured employerAppellate DivisionBoard discretionSignificant contactsSubject matter jurisdictionChef
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Independent Bankers Ass'n of New York State Inc. v. Marine Midland Bank, N.A.

This case involves an action brought by the Independent Bankers Association of New York State, Inc. and The Canadaigua National Bank and Trust Company against Marine Midland Bank, N.A. and Wegman’s Food Markets, Inc. Plaintiffs allege that Marine Midland violated Section 36 of the National Banking Act by operating an automated teller machine (ATM) at a Wegman's supermarket, constituting unauthorized branch banking. Concurrently, a state law claim was brought against Wegman's for violating Section 131 of the New York Banking Law, which prohibits unauthorized banking activities. Wegman's filed a motion to dismiss, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction over the state law claim, specifically concerning the exercise of pendent jurisdiction over a party not otherwise subject to federal jurisdiction. The court determined that it possessed both the constitutional power under Article III and the statutory power under 12 U.S.C. Section 36 and 28 U.S.C. Section 1331 to exercise pendent party jurisdiction. Finding that judicial economy, convenience, and fairness to the litigants would be served by hearing the claims together, the court exercised its discretion and denied Wegman’s motion to dismiss.

Pendant JurisdictionNational Banking ActNew York Banking LawATMBranch BankingSubject Matter JurisdictionJudicial PowerFederal Question JurisdictionArticle IIIStatutory Construction
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Depaja Enterprises, Ltd. v. American Bank & Trust Co.

The court addressed a motion by defendant Bank Leumi Trust Company of New York to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff's complaint asserted claims under federal securities laws, the Federal Deposit Insurance Act, and pendent jurisdiction. The court found no subject matter jurisdiction for the claim against Bank Leumi under federal securities laws, noting the absence of a "common nucleus of operative facts." Regarding the claim against the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) as receiver for a State bank, the court determined it did not arise under federal laws. Citing Aldinger v. Howard, the court declined to exercise pendent party jurisdiction over Bank Leumi, emphasizing that the relevant statute did not intend Bank Leumi to be a party. Additionally, the court decided against exercising its discretionary pendent jurisdiction, concluding the state law claim against Bank Leumi belonged in state courts. Consequently, the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was granted.

Subject Matter JurisdictionRule 12(b) Fed.R.Civ.P.Pendent JurisdictionFederal Securities LawsFederal Deposit Insurance ActContractual ClaimReceiver of State BankPendent Party JurisdictionMotion to DismissFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fire Insurance v. United Limousine Service, Inc.

This case involves a lawsuit filed by United States Fire Insurance Company against Holyland Travel Brokerage Corp. and Abdul Ziad, among others, alleging participation in an insurance fraud scheme and unjust enrichment. The initial complaint included RICO violations, but the RICO claims against Holyland and Ziad were dismissed without prejudice. The remaining claim against these defendants was a state common law claim of unjust enrichment. Holyland and Ziad moved to dismiss this claim for lack of jurisdiction, arguing against the exercise of pendent party jurisdiction. The court denied their motion, affirming its authority to exercise supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a) and finding none of the discretionary exceptions in § 1367(c) applicable.

Supplemental JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionRICO ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentInsurance FraudMotion to DismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)28 U.S.C. § 1367Second CircuitFederal Jurisdiction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verdi v. United States

This case addresses the application of pendent jurisdiction in a Federal Torts Claims Act (FTCA) case where a state common law claim is asserted against a party over whom there is no independent federal jurisdiction. Plaintiffs brought an action, including a claim against the Town of Huntington, following a slip and fall accident near a U.S. Post Office. The Town of Huntington moved to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. The U.S. Magistrate recommended retaining jurisdiction, applying the doctrine of pendent-party jurisdiction. The District Court adopted this recommendation, concluding that pendent-party jurisdiction is appropriate in FTCA cases under these circumstances to ensure all claims can be tried in a single federal forum. Therefore, the Town of Huntington's motion to dismiss was denied, and its request for an interlocutory appeal was also denied.

Pendent JurisdictionFederal Tort Claims ActSlip and FallMotion to DismissPersonal InjuryFederal Court JurisdictionState Law ClaimsCommon Nucleus of Operative FactInterlocutory AppealJudicial Economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 1985

National Union Fire Insurance v. Ideal Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning personal jurisdiction over Parthenon Insurance Company. The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to reargue and renew opposition to Parthenon's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's decision, granting the plaintiff's motion to reargue and renew, and subsequently denying Parthenon's motion to dismiss without prejudice, allowing for limited discovery on the jurisdictional issue. The central legal question is whether Parthenon, a 'captive' insurer for Hospital Corporation of America (HCA) and its subsidiaries, which conduct business in New York, is subject to personal jurisdiction in New York State. The court found that enough evidence was presented to warrant discovery to establish jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionCorporate VeilSubsidiary LiabilityParent CompanyInsurance CoverageMotion to DismissDiscoveryAppellate ReviewCPLRCaptive Insurer
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ziegler v. Rieff

William Ziegler sued Saybrook Marine Service, Brion Rieff, and Brion Rieff Yacht Builders, Inc., alleging loss of accessories from his yacht while it was under their care. Defendant Saybrook Marine Service moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, personal jurisdiction, and improper venue. The Court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding admiralty jurisdiction over the contract claims for vessel storage and exercising ancillary jurisdiction over the negligence claims. However, the Court determined that the current New York venue was improper, as all parties and the alleged incident were in Connecticut. Consequently, the Court ordered the case to be transferred to the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut in the interests of justice, without ruling on personal jurisdiction.

Admiralty JurisdictionMaritime LawYacht Storage ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionVenue TransferFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)28 U.S.C. 1333Ancillary JurisdictionLong-Arm Statute
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greenblatt v. New York State Labor Relations Board

This declaratory judgment action addresses whether the New York State Labor Relations Board (SLRB) has jurisdiction over a skilled nursing and health-related facility operated by the New York State Commissioner of Health as a receiver. The plaintiff, Robert M. Greenblatt, as the Commissioner's designee, contended that the receivership performed governmental functions, exempting it from SLRB jurisdiction under Labor Law § 715(2). The court examined prior cases involving state agency heads acting as receivers and found the plaintiff's arguments for differentiation unpersuasive. The court ruled that the employees of these facilities are not state employees and that denying SLRB jurisdiction would leave them unable to select union representation, especially given the receivership's prolonged duration. Consequently, the court declared that the SLRB does have jurisdiction over the employees for representational hearings and unfair labor practice matters.

JurisdictionState Labor Relations BoardReceiverPublic Health LawLabor LawSkilled Nursing FacilityHealth-Related FacilityCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentStatutory Interpretation
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 3,129 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