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 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

Silberberg v. Board of Elections

This is an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of New York Election Law § 17-130(10), which prohibits voters from displaying their marked ballots. The plaintiffs, who wish to take and share "ballot selfies," argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The court considered the standing of the plaintiffs, the standards for a preliminary injunction, and the likelihood of success on the merits, including whether polling places constitute a public forum, the law's viewpoint neutrality, and its reasonableness in protecting election integrity against voter bribery and intimidation. The court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a nonpublic forum, and that granting an injunction so close to the election would disrupt the electoral process and not serve the public interest.

Election LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechBallot SelfiesVoter IntimidationVote BuyingPreliminary InjunctionPublic Forum DoctrineViewpoint NeutralityReasonableness Standard
References
30
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02370 [237 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Whitfield v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Assn.

The plaintiff, John "Divine G" Whitfield, doing business as Divine G Entertainment, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss his amended complaint. Whitfield had sued Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) and its members for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging inadequate payment for website and paralegal services. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Whitfield failed to adequately allege injury for fraud and that civil conspiracy claims stand or fall with the underlying tort. The court also determined that defendants were not unjustly enriched and that the plaintiff failed to establish an employer-employee relationship necessary for Labor Law and FLSA claims. Additionally, claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were dismissed for failing to meet rigorous standards, and piercing the corporate veil was not adequately pleaded.

FraudUnjust EnrichmentEmployment RelationshipQuantum MeruitLabor LawFLSAEmotional DistressCorporate VeilPiercing Corporate VeilPleading Sufficiency
References
26
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

Washington Heights—West Harlem—Inwood Mental Health Council, Inc. v. District 1199, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees, RWDSU

This District Court opinion addresses motions by the Washington Heights Mental Health Council to amend its complaint and by District 1199 to enforce an arbitration award. Previously, the court vacated an award reinstating Edward Lane with back pay, but the Second Circuit reversed and remanded. The court now finds an oral collective bargaining agreement existed, generally requiring enforcement of the arbitration award. However, new serious allegations against Lane, if proven, could justify discharge. A strong public policy against reinstating a mental health worker accused of sexually molesting patients warrants staying his reinstatement pending arbitration of these new claims. Despite this, the court orders the Council to comply with the back pay portion of the arbitration award, finding no public policy violation in that aspect.

Arbitration Award EnforcementCollective Bargaining AgreementBack PayReinstatement StayedSexual Misconduct AllegationsPublic Policy ExceptionLabor DisputeAmended ComplaintFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRemand Order
References
11
Case No. Appeal Nos. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 29, 2012

Abbott v. Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC

This case concerns appeals from the Supreme Court, Onondaga County, primarily focusing on a plaintiff's Labor Law and common-law negligence action against Crown Mill Restoration Development, LLC. Following Crown Mill's default at a damages inquest, a default judgment was entered. The plaintiff then initiated an enforcement action, seeking to pierce the corporate veil to hold Crown Mill's owner, Vito William Lucchetti, Jr., and several related entities liable. Crown Mill moved to vacate the default judgment, citing law office failure and Workers' Compensation Law defenses. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, vacating the default judgment's damages award and remitting for a new assessment, while affirming the denial to fully vacate the default due to Crown Mill's failure to provide a reasonable excuse. Appeals concerning dismissal of the enforcement action and a stay of discovery were also addressed, with one deemed moot.

Default JudgmentVacate JudgmentAmended ComplaintLabor LawCommon-Law NegligenceCorporate Veil PiercingWorkers' Compensation LawLaw Office FailureDamages AssessmentMoot Appeal
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLean v. Village of Sleepy Hollow

Plaintiff Gary McLean, a former part-time Buildings Code enforcement Officer, sued the Village of Sleepy Hollow for retaliatory termination. The parties reached a settlement in March 2000, which included McLean's reinstatement, back pay, and attorneys' fees. However, the Village subsequently implemented new working hours for part-time employees, requiring them to work during weekdays, which conflicted with McLean's existing full-time job. McLean was consequently terminated again after being unable to comply with the new schedule. He filed a motion to enforce the original settlement, arguing the Village violated its terms by changing employment conditions, but the court denied his motion, ruling that the Village retained the right to alter job terms. The court, however, indicated that McLean might have grounds to move to set aside the settlement based on fraudulent inducement, given that new documents suggested the Village may have been aware of the impending changes before the settlement was reached.

Settlement enforcementRetaliatory terminationCivil service statusPart-time employment conditionsBreach of settlementMunicipal employmentRes judicataCollateral estoppelIssue preclusionArticle 78 proceeding
References
17
Case No. 17-09006
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2017

General Motors LLC v. Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re Johns-Manville Corp.)

Plaintiff General Motors LLC initiated an adversary proceeding against the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust and its trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that its state court action in Ohio against the Manville Trust was not enjoined by the channeling injunction from the Johns-Manville Corporation's chapter 11 reorganization plan. GM's Ohio action aimed to hold the Manville Trust liable under Ohio Revised Code § 4123.931 for an employee's widow's failure to notify GM of asbestos settlements. The court exercised jurisdiction, rejecting the Manville Trust's abstention arguments. It found that GM's claim against the Manville Trust, whether characterized as subrogation or contribution, constituted an "Other Asbestos Obligation" and was therefore explicitly barred by the Manville Plan's channeling injunction and the Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP). Consequently, the court enjoined GM from pursuing its Ohio Action against the Manville Trust.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcy InjunctionChanneling InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentManville TrustTrust Distribution ProceduresOhio LawSubrogation ClaimsContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Showing 1-10 of 894 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