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

State Commission for Human Rights v. Mullen

The New York State Commission Against Discrimination, as petitioner, filed a motion under Executive Law § 298 seeking judicial enforcement of its order, dated December 3, 1963, against unnamed respondents. This original order stemmed from a hearing concerning alleged unlawful discriminatory practices. The petitioner aimed to secure court benediction for the order, enabling contempt as a remedy for any future violations. The court reviewed Article 15 of the Executive Law, confirming that section 298 permits the commission to obtain such an enforcement order. Consequently, the motion was granted, authorizing the issuance of an order to enforce the commission's original directive.

Enforcement MotionExecutive LawDiscriminatory PracticesStipulationContempt RemedyJudicial ReviewOrder EnforcementNew York LawAdministrative OrderHuman Rights Commission
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital

A proceeding was initiated by the State Division of Human Rights to enforce an order against Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital. The hospital had discriminated against a female employee by denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disability, despite being a self-insured employer providing benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The State Division's order, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, directed the hospital to pay benefits, furnish proof, and establish a nondiscrimination policy. The hospital failed to comply, leading to this enforcement action almost two years after the Appeal Board's order. The court granted the petition for enforcement, denied the hospital's cross-motion, found the enforcement proceeding timely and not barred by laches, and affirmed that the original discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy Disability BenefitsEnforcement ProceedingHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation LawTimelinessLachesSubstantial EvidenceEmployer DiscriminationDisability Benefits Denial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Portrait Corp. of America, Inc.

Portrait Corporation of America, Inc. (PCA), and its affiliates, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During these proceedings, PCA sold substantially all its assets, including the "PICTUREME!" trademark, to CPI Corp. ("CPI") free and clear of interests under Bankruptcy Code section 363(f). Subsequently, Picture Me Press, LLC ("PMP") filed a trademark infringement action against CPI in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Ohio, alleging infringement of its "PICTURE ME" trademark. CPI then moved in the Bankruptcy Court to enforce the Sale Order and enjoin PMP's Ohio action, arguing that PMP's interest was extinguished by the free and clear sale. PMP contended its claims were not "interests" under 363(f) or that it lacked proper notice. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Robert D. Drain, determined that a trademark infringement claim could be an "interest" under 363(f) but decided to permissively abstain under 28 U.S.C. § 1334(c)(1). The court cited significant factual overlap between the motion to enforce the sale order and the pending Ohio action, involving issues of trademark ownership, effective notice to PMP, and post-sale use of the mark. The court also noted that the dispute was between non-debtors and had no financial impact on the debtors' estates, suggesting a risk of forum shopping, thus favoring abstention.

Bankruptcy LawSection 363(f)Trademark InfringementAbstentionSale Order EnforcementFederal JurisdictionDue ProcessChapter 11Creditors' RightsInter-court Conflict
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. Morgan Stanley & Co.

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sought to enforce two subpoenas against Morgan Stanley & Co., Inc. and Morgan Stanley Dean Witter & Co., stemming from race and/or sex discrimination charges filed by four African-American women employees. Morgan Stanley contested enforcement, arguing against sharing information with charging parties due to a potential settlement and an existing protective order from a previous case (Schieffelin litigation), and claiming the subpoenas were irrelevant, vague, or burdensome. The Court largely sided with the EEOC, affirming its independent investigative powers despite individual settlements and upholding the right to share information with charging parties as per Supreme Court precedent. The subpoenas were enforced, but with modifications that limited the scope of requested 'informal complaints' and upheld the protective order from the prior Schieffelin case for any overlapping documents.

Employment DiscriminationSubpoena EnforcementEEOC InvestigationConfidentiality OrderCollateral EstoppelCharging Parties RightsTitle VIIEqual Pay ActSettlement ImpactRelevance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. Adv. No. 12-09801(SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

In re Old Carco LLC

Chrysler Group LLC (New Chrysler) moved to enforce a prior Sale Order, arguing it precluded Michigan, Illinois, and Indiana from using Old Carco LLC's unemployment insurance experience rating to determine New Chrysler's tax rate. The United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York, presided over by Judge Stuart M. Bernstein, denied the motion without prejudice. The Court found it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Tax Injunction Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1341, because the states provided a plain, speedy, and efficient remedy for New Chrysler to challenge the tax assessments in state courts. The decision highlighted the jurisdictional barrier of the Tax Injunction Act, which prevents federal courts from interfering with state tax collection, even in bankruptcy proceedings related to interpreting a sale order.

BankruptcyTax Injunction ActUnemployment Insurance TaxSuccessor LiabilitySale OrderFree and ClearJurisdictionState TaxationFederalismChapter 11
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 1965

State Commission for Human Rights v. Farrell

This case involves an appeal by the appellants (a union) from a court order dated July 26, 1965. The order sought to enforce a directive from the State Commission for Human Rights, compelling the parties to cease and desist from discriminating against Negroes in the selection of sheet metal apprentices and to establish a new class of 65 apprentices. The appellants contested the court's authority to dictate the number of apprentices, arguing it infringed on arbitration agreements. The court, however, affirmed the order, finding that all parties had previously agreed to the formation of two classes, each consisting of 65 apprentices, as part of measures to discontinue discriminatory practices. The decision emphasized that the court acted within its jurisdiction to enforce the commission's order, especially given the prior agreement.

DiscriminationHuman RightsApprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawCourt Order EnforcementArbitration AgreementsJudicial ReviewAppellate CourtNew York State LawCivil Rights Enforcement
References
0
Case No. ADJ8141174
Regular
Dec 03, 2013

JAIME FLORES vs. HARBOR CHOICE EXPRESS LTD CORP., GREAT AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a Petition for Removal filed by a lien claimant's representative, deeming the sanctions order appealable through reconsideration. The WCAB granted reconsideration of an order imposing sanctions for failure to pay a lien activation fee, citing confusion surrounding the fee's enforceability. In light of a federal court's preliminary injunction enjoining enforcement of the lien activation fee provisions, the WCAB rescinded the sanctions order. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationOrder to Pay SanctionsWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPreliminary injunctionAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerRescinded
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. 99 Civ. 3200(DLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Cordius Trust v. KUMMERFELD ASSOCIATES, INC.

The court found Donald D. Kummerfeld, Elizabeth M. Kummerfeld, and Kummerfeld Associates, Inc. in civil contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders and restraining notices. The Kummerfelds repeatedly evaded judgment enforcement by activities such as increasing the mortgage on their Cape Cod property, filing a homestead declaration, and making significant expenditures instead of satisfying the judgment. The court rejected arguments of ambiguous notices and upheld the validity of the restraining orders based on due process considerations. As sanctions, the Kummerfelds were ordered to pay $10,000 for fees and costs, Donald Kummerfeld to complete discovery, and both to provide documentation on their Cape Cod property's value. Failure to comply would result in further remedial and coercive sanctions.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsPost-Judgment EnforcementRestraining OrdersFraudulent TransferPiercing Corporate VeilNew York C.P.L.R. § 5222Massachusetts Homestead ExemptionAttorneys' FeesMagistrate Judge Order
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 24,333 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