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 Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. 286/10
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiffs Delores Jackson, Shawn Jackson, and Odamis Villa initiated a lawsuit against Defendant Bank of America, alleging that the bank unlawfully froze their accounts in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), CPLR 5222-a. The plaintiffs contended that the bank failed to provide required exemption notices and claim forms, improperly aggregated funds from multiple accounts, and closed accounts without due process, thereby denying them access to statutorily exempt funds. Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the EIPA does not confer a private right of action for debtors against banks and that its actions were supported by documentary evidence. The court reviewed the defendant's evidence, which was found to support the plaintiffs' allegations, and concluded that an implied private right of action exists under the EIPA, aligning with its legislative intent to protect vulnerable account holders. Consequently, the court denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims and also ruling against the bank's preemption argument.

Exempt Income Protection ActCPLR 5222-aPrivate Right of ActionImplied Right of ActionBank Account RestraintJudgment Debtor RightsConsumer ProtectionMotion to DismissPreemptionBanking Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Amerogen v. Donnini

This dissenting opinion addresses the interpretation of the 'owners of one and two-family dwellings' exemption from Labor Law liability under sections 240 and 241. Justice Levine argues that the exemption, intended to protect typical homeowners, should be strictly construed and not applied to owners who acquire residential property purely for investment and income-producing purposes. The dissent references legislative history from the Law Revision Commission, highlighting the rationale that the nondelegable duty to workers is based on the owner's dominant economic position, which breaks down for typical homeowners but not for real estate developers or investors. Therefore, the dissent concludes that such investors fall outside the protected class, maintaining that the Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment to the defendants. The final order, however, reversed this decision, granted summary judgment to defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryExemption ClauseOne-Two Family DwellingsOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentsSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farias v. Simon

This dissenting memorandum concerns the applicability of the homeowners' exemption under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) in a personal injury case involving a workman. Defendants, Simon and Parry, owned a single-family home undergoing renovation where the plaintiff was injured. The dissent argues that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants, contending that there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants intended to use the property for commercial purposes at the time of the accident. Evidence presented, such as the defendants never residing at the property, extensive renovations, and discussions about renting, casts doubt on their claim that commercial intent materialized only after the incident. The dissent advocates for reversing the summary judgment and allowing the issue of subjective intent to be resolved at trial.

Homeowners' exemptionLabor Law liabilityCommercial intentSummary judgmentCredibility determinationRenovation projectPlaintiff injuryEvidentiary disputeProperty useAppellate dissent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re De Vries

Debtors filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy and sought to exempt a pre-petition property damage claim for their automobile, citing New York Debtor & Creditor Law § 283(2) and Civil Practice Law & Rules § 5205(b). The Trustee objected, arguing that CPLR § 5205(b) did not apply to the automobile exemption under D&C Law § 282(1) and that the contingent nature of the claim at the time of filing precluded a 'cash' exemption under D&C Law § 283(2). The Bankruptcy Court, while acknowledging liberal construction of exemption statutes, ruled that the pre-petition contingent automobile property damage claim was not exempt under the cited statutes, distinguishing it from insurance proceeds for already exempt property or liquidated cash. Consequently, the Trustee's motion objecting to the exemption was granted.

BankruptcyChapter 7Exemption LawProperty Damage ClaimNew York State LawDebtor & Creditor LawCivil Practice Law & RulesContingent ClaimsAutomobile ExemptionTrustee Objection
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corporation

Plaintiff, injured due to a scaffold collapse during a house renovation project overseen by Joel Levin for Danbrod Realty Corporation, initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Danbrod, Levin, and Morton Schermerhorn, Jr. The Supreme Court initially granted Danbrod's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. However, on appeal, the court determined that Danbrod, a real estate development corporation purchasing the property solely for commercial renovation and resale, did not qualify for the homeowner exemption from strict liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding Danbrod and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability against Danbrod.

Labor Lawscaffold collapsepersonal injurysummary judgmentstrict liabilityowner liabilitycommercial use exemptionreal estate developmentrenovation projectAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adamowicz v. Internal Revenue Service

Plaintiffs Michael Adamowicz and Elizabeth Fraser, acting as executors of the Estate of Mary Adamowicz, filed an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They sought to compel the production of documents withheld by the IRS, related to three FOIA requests made in December 2005 and April 2007 concerning the IRS's examination of their mother's Estate and ensuing legal disputes. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Court found that the IRS's searches for responsive documents were adequate and that the withheld documents fell within FOIA exemptions, specifically Exemption 2 (internal agency information), Exemption 3 (statutory exemptions under I.R.C. § 6103), Exemption 5 (privileges like deliberative process, attorney-client, and work-product), Exemption 6 (personnel and medical information), and Exemption 7 (law enforcement purposes, including invasion of privacy and confidential sources). Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motion was DENIED.

FOIA ExemptionsIRS DisclosureTaxation LitigationAgency Search AdequacyDeliberative ProcessAttorney Work-ProductConfidentiality AssuranceSummary Judgment MotionGovernment Information ActPrivacy Interests
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lipsky

Richard Lipsky, convicted of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery, sought an exemption from the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) prohibition on working for labor unions. The Department of Justice did not object, but the Department of Labor opposed the motion. The Court granted Lipsky's motion, finding that he demonstrated rehabilitation since his release from imprisonment in 2013. His work for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and pro bono efforts, along with a clean record, supported this finding. The Court also determined that his proposed role as a consultant for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, focusing on criminal justice reforms and not involving lobbying or fund handling, would not conflict with the LMRDA's purpose of preventing corruption in labor organizations.

RehabilitationLMRDA ExemptionBribery ConvictionLabor Union ConsultantCriminal Justice ReformFederal CourtJudicial DiscretionSentencing GuidelinesPost-Conviction ReliefEthical Conduct
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 509 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