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

Clark v. Cuomo

The plaintiff, chairman of the New York Republican State Committee, sought a preliminary injunction against Governor Mario M. Cuomo to stop the implementation of Executive Order No. 43, which established a state program for voter registration. The plaintiff argued the order was unconstitutional and illegal, violating the bipartisan mandate for voter registration and exceeding the Governor's authority by usurping legislative power. The court found the plaintiff likely to succeed on the merits, emphasizing that the New York Constitution vests control of voter registration and elections solely with the Legislature. The court ruled that the Governor lacked the authority to establish such a program, which invaded the legislative domain. Consequently, the motion for a preliminary injunction was granted, restraining the Governor from enforcing Executive Order No. 43.

Voter RegistrationExecutive Order ChallengeSeparation of PowersLegislative AuthorityGovernor's PowersPreliminary InjunctionConstitutional LawElection LawPublic PolicyJudicial Review
References
8
Case No. ADJ2501619 (OAK 0286955)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

JAMES BRADFORD vs. MCMILLAN BROS. ELECTRIC, INC., PACIFIC EAGLE INSURANCE CO./tpa SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration, removal, and stay of execution. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed with the Appeals Board more than 25 days after the arbitrator's decision. The Board also lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for removal or stay of execution, as these actions are not permitted for an arbitrator's decision in a Labor Code section 3201.5 carve-out case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for Stay of ExecutionUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 3201.5Carve-out CaseArbitrator's DecisionJurisdictionAppeals Board Rule 10865
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pecorella v. Oak Orchard Community Health Center, Inc.

Plaintiff, a white male, sued Oak Orchard Community Health Center for employment discrimination after a job offer for 'physician's assistant' was withdrawn. The offer was rescinded because the plaintiff allegedly violated a confidentiality agreement regarding salary terms. Plaintiff brought eleven causes of action, including violations of Title VII, the Equal Pay Act, and Executive Order 11246, as well as constitutional claims. The court denied the plaintiff's motion for a preliminary injunction, finding he did not meet the necessary burden. The court also granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the complaint, ruling that the plaintiff lacked standing under Title VII and the Equal Pay Act, and that Executive Order 11246 does not provide for a private cause of action. The court further dismissed other federal and constitutional claims, concluding it lacked jurisdiction for state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationJob Offer WithdrawalPreliminary InjunctionMotion to DismissTitle VIIEqual Pay ActExecutive Order 11246Constitutional RightsStandingConfidentiality Agreement
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowen v. County of Westchester

Plaintiffs Indira Bowen and her children alleged Fourth Amendment rights violations under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the New York Constitution, along with common law torts, against the County of Westchester, the Town of Greenburgh, and John Doe officers. The claims arose from an October 7, 2004 search of their home by Greenburgh police and Westchester probation officers, who were executing a search order for probationer Roylin Fairclough. Plaintiffs contended the search order was based on inaccurate information regarding Fairclough's residence and that Greenburgh officers used excessive force. The court granted summary judgment for both municipal defendants, finding no underlying constitutional violation by the probation officer nor any municipal policy or custom causing the alleged deprivations. Additionally, the court found no evidence of excessive force linked to Greenburgh's policy and ordered the plaintiffs to show cause for why the claims against the unidentified John Doe defendants should not be dismissed for failure to prosecute.

Fourth Amendment42 U.S.C. § 1983New York ConstitutionCivil RightsSummary JudgmentMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimProbation SearchExcessive ForceDeliberate Indifference
References
61
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

In re Baby Boy O.

Respondent Jessica O., an 18-year-old with borderline intellectual functioning, initially decided to place her child for adoption through an authorized agency. Shortly after the child's birth, she expressed a desire to keep the baby, but was informed by DSS of their intent to petition for temporary custody due to concerns about her caregiving abilities. Consequently, she executed a surrender of custody to the petitioner agency. The Family Court later found she was coerced, denied the agency's petition for surrender approval, and ordered the child returned to respondent. The adoptive parents appealed this decision. The appellate court found insufficient evidence of coercion or duress, concluding the surrender was knowingly and validly executed. However, recognizing respondent's timely challenge, the court reversed the Family Court's order and remitted the case for a best interests hearing for the child.

AdoptionParental RightsDuressCoercionBest Interests of the ChildSurrender of CustodyFamily LawAppellate ReviewIntellectual FunctioningSocial Services Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ford v. Nassau County Executive

Anthony Ford, a pro se plaintiff, sued the Nassau County Correctional Center and the Nassau County Executive under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging his Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights were violated by being forced to work as a "food cart worker" without pay while a pretrial detainee. Ford sought $2.5 million in damages. The court dismissed the claims against the Nassau County Executive due to lack of personal involvement. For the NCCC, the court acknowledged a "close question" regarding a policy but proceeded to the merits, ruling that required "housekeeping duties" for pretrial detainees, especially with compensation like extra food, do not constitute punishment or violate due process or Thirteenth Amendment rights. Furthermore, Ford suffered no actual damages because his subsequent guilty plea and sentence of time served encompassed the period of alleged forced labor, effectively curing any potential constitutional deprivation. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was closed.

Section 1983Civil RightsThirteenth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessPretrial DetaineeForced LaborCorrectional FacilitySummary JudgmentCompensatory Damages
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 24,245 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