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

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. 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

Dhine v. District Director

Petitioner Lulseged Dhine, an Ethiopian Jew, sought a writ of habeas corpus against the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) and the local District Director. He challenged his placement in exclusion proceedings and the denial of his applications for asylum and withholding of deportation. Dhine fled Ethiopia after his parents and brother were executed and he was personally tortured due to religious persecution under the Mengistu government. Despite having several misdemeanor drug convictions in the U.S., Dhine argued his past persecution, traumatic experiences, and rehabilitation efforts merited asylum. The court found that Dhine was properly in exclusion proceedings, but reversed the Board of Immigration Appeals' (BIA) denial of asylum. The court concluded that Dhine remained statutorily eligible for asylum based on a well-founded fear of persecution and that denying asylum was an abuse of discretion given the totality of the circumstances.

Immigration LawAsylum ClaimsRefugee StatusReligious PersecutionEthiopian JewsExclusion ProceedingsDeportationJudicial ReviewAbuse of DiscretionWell-Founded Fear
References
12
Case No. CA 10-02269
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2011

ELLICOTT GROUP, LLC v. STATE OF NEW YORK EXECUTIVE DEPT.

This case addresses an appeal concerning the authority of the State of New York Executive Department Office of General Services (OGS) to mandate a prevailing wage clause in a lease agreement with Ellicott Group, LLC, for privately owned property. OGS had adopted a policy requiring prevailing wages for certain work, even if it did not meet the technical definition of 'public work' under the Labor Law. The Supreme Court, Erie County, had granted summary judgment to Ellicott Group, LLC, concluding that OGS lacked statutory authority and violated the separation of powers doctrine. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, holding that OGS, as an administrative body, usurped the legislative function by enacting a policy defining when prevailing wages should be paid, a role reserved for the Legislature.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 8Labor Law Article 9Public WorkLease AgreementExecutive AuthorityLegislative FunctionSeparation of PowersAdministrative LawDeclaratory Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelly v. New York State Executive Department

Defendant Albert E. Caccese, while serving as Chief Counsel and later Executive Deputy Commissioner of the Office of Parks, Recreation and Historic Preservation (OPRHP), secured loans from his Commissioner Orin Lehman and a Regional Director (plaintiff) under the guise of gambling debts and real estate investments. Following an investigation by the State Inspector General revealing Caccese's practices, the plaintiff was demoted in 1991, incurring a $25,000 annual salary loss. The plaintiff initiated an action under 42 USC § 1983, asserting retaliatory demotion for exercising his First Amendment right to free speech by reporting Caccese's financial dealings with concessionaires. Defendants Lehman and Caccese sought summary judgment, attributing the demotion to budgetary constraints and plaintiff's subpar job performance, but the Supreme Court rejected their motions. The appellate court upheld the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the plaintiff presented adequate evidence, including positive job evaluations, to establish a genuine dispute of material fact regarding whether his protected conduct was a substantial factor in his demotion.

Retaliatory demotionFirst Amendment free speechPublic employee rightsSummary judgment standardsGovernment ethicsWhistleblower allegationsOfficial misconductBudgetary defenseJob performance disputeAppellate review
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Hulin

Claimant, a data processing supervisor, was asked to resign by her executive director following complaints. The executive director suggested she consider resigning, but the claimant testified she was explicitly told she "must resign" and had "no choice." The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found the claimant eligible for unemployment insurance benefits, a decision which the employer appealed. The Board resolved a credibility issue in the claimant's favor, concluding that she was asked to resign immediately and did not voluntarily leave her employment without good cause. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

unemployment insurancevoluntary resignationgood causeconstructive dischargecredibility determinationappealsupervisoremployee complaintsexecutive directorunemployment benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2013

Donohue v. Finkelstein Memorial Library

Susan Donohue and Mary Wilson brought employment discrimination claims against their employer, Finkelstein Memorial Library, and former Executive Director Robert Devino, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation. Devino was accused of sexually suggestive conduct and advances. Following the plaintiffs' complaints, Devino was placed on leave and later resigned. The Library moved for summary judgment on all claims. The court denied the motion regarding the hostile work environment claims, ruling that Devino, as Executive Director, was an alter ego of the employer, making the Faragher/Ellerth defense unavailable. However, the court granted summary judgment on the retaliation claims, dismissing them due to the plaintiffs' failure to establish a prima facie case of causation and materially adverse employment action.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentTitle VIINYSHRLEmployment DiscriminationEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityAlter Ego
References
32
Showing 1-10 of 787 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