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

Pataki v. New York State Assembly

This Opinion of the Court resolves a significant dispute between the Governor and the New York State Legislature concerning their constitutional roles in the state budget process, affirming the executive budgeting system established in 1927. The Court reinforced the principle that the Governor acts as the budget's "constructor," with the Legislature primarily limited to striking out or reducing appropriation items. In Silver v Pataki, the Court declared the Legislature's actions unconstitutional for attempting to alter the purposes and conditions of Governor's 1998 appropriation bills through subsequent legislation. Similarly, regarding the 2001 budget in Pataki v New York State Assembly, the Court rejected the Legislature's use of "single-purpose bills" to replace Governor's appropriation items and upheld the Governor's authority to include detailed programmatic conditions within appropriation bills. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's orders, deciding the dispute in the Governor's favor and reiterating that all appropriations inherently involve policy decisions, thereby limiting judicial intervention in budgetary content disputes unless clearly non-budgetary.

Executive BudgetingLegislative PowerSeparation of PowersAppropriation BillsLine-Item VetoConstitutional LawNew York Court of AppealsBudget ProcessGubernatorial AuthorityLegislative Alteration
References
19
Case No. Adv. Proc. No. 16-01074 (SMB)
Regular Panel Decision

Core Litigation Trust ex rel. Kravitz v. Apollo Global Management, LLC (In re AOG Entertainment, Inc.)

The CORE Litigation Trust, as assignee of Debtors’ pre-petition secured lenders, initiated a proceeding in California State Court against a group of defendants. The Trust alleged inducing a breach of contract and intentional interference with contracts. The action was removed to federal court and subsequently transferred to the United States Bankruptcy Court for the Southern District of New York. The Trust moved for mandatory abstention and remand to the California State Court. The Court granted the motion, finding it had non-core, 'related to' jurisdiction and that the action could be timely adjudicated in the state court.

Mandatory abstentionRemandBankruptcy jurisdictionNon-core jurisdictionRelated to jurisdictionTimely adjudicationState law claimsFederalismComityChoice of law
References
75
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02756 [194 AD3d 421]
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2021

Mullins v. Center Line Studios, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200, and common-law negligence. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the earlier order. It ruled that Center Line Studios, Inc. was entitled to summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 200 claims because it was not a statutory agent and lacked supervisory control over the plaintiff's work. Additionally, NYC Production Core LLC's motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint and cross-claims against it, with the exception of contractual indemnification claims, as it was identified as the plaintiff's special employer. A triable issue of fact was found to exist regarding Center Line Studios, Inc.'s potential common-law negligence in creating or exacerbating a dangerous condition.

Labor Law §§ 240(1)Labor Law §§ 200Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentStatutory AgentSpecial Employer DoctrineContractual IndemnificationConstruction AccidentLadder Fall InjuryPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1979

Slanar v. Grumman Aerospace Corp.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision, filed May 15, 1979, which disallowed a claim for continued compensation. The core issue was whether the claimant, a 59-year-old assembler from Grumman Aerospace, voluntarily retired. The claimant suffered a back injury in 1969, received compensation for 18 months, and attempted to return to work in 1977. However, due to persistent back pain, he retired and applied for a pension. The Board found his retirement voluntary, a decision affirmed by the appellate court, citing Dr. Cohen’s opinion. A dissenting opinion argued that the retirement was involuntary, prompted by disability, and therefore should not preclude compensation.

voluntary retirementback injurydisabilityworkers' compensationcompensation paymentsearly retirementlabor marketappellate reviewmedical opinionemployer liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McAllister v. Renu Industrial Tire Corp.

The plaintiff, injured by a split-rim tire assembly during employment, sued his employer (the defendant) for 'fraudulent and intentional' impairment of his right to sue the manufacturer, alleging destruction of evidence. The defendant's president had assured the plaintiff of workers' compensation coverage, and the assembly was discarded later. Both parties testified there was no agreement to preserve the assembly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, stating employers lack a duty to preserve such instrumentalities without prior agreement. The appellate court affirmed, finding no duty as the assembly was innocently discarded before notice of a potential lawsuit.

Destruction of EvidenceSpoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationDuty to PreserveThird-Party LawsuitAppellate ReviewFraudulent ConductTortious Conduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirrer v. Hevesi

The petitioner, a police sergeant for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, sought accidental and performance of duty disability retirement benefits after slipping from a fire truck due to foam on his shoes. The respondent Comptroller denied his applications, finding that the incident was not an 'accident' under the Retirement and Social Security Law, as slipping on foam was an inherent risk of his job duties, and that he was not permanently incapacitated from performing his duties. The court affirmed the Comptroller's determination, citing substantial evidence supporting both findings, including the resolution of conflicting expert medical opinions regarding permanent disability. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsAccidental DisabilityPerformance of Duty DisabilityPolice SergeantFirefighting OperationsLa Guardia AirportSlip and FallInherent Risk of EmploymentCervical Spine InjuryExpert Medical Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 13, 1998

Bailey v. Young Men's Christian Ass'n of the Capital District

Plaintiff Robin Bailey, an electrical supervisor, was struck in the forehead by a falling concrete core while working on a construction site owned by the YMCA. The incident occurred after he had plugged in an extension cord on an elevated running track and returned to the ground floor. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), arguing that the injury was associated with an elevated risk. The Supreme Court granted the motion, but the appellate court reversed. The appellate court concluded that plaintiff's work on the ground floor did not involve an elevation-related risk requiring safety devices, and the concrete core did not constitute material being improperly hoisted or secured.

Construction AccidentFalling Object InjuryLabor Law § 240(1) LiabilityElevation RiskSummary Judgment ReversalWorkplace SafetyAppellate DecisionConstruction SitePlaintiff InjuryEmployer Responsibility
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fisher v. Insurance Co. of Pennsylvania (In Re Pied Piper Casual, Inc.)

Pied Piper Casuals, Inc., a ladies apparel manufacturer, filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy which was converted to Chapter 7, with Robert Fisher appointed as Trustee. The Trustee initiated an action against the Insurance Company of the State of Pennsylvania (I.C.S.P.) to recover $1,407,208 for theft losses under an insurance policy. I.C.S.P. argued the claim was untimely and moved to remove the proceeding to the district court, which denied the motion as premature, directing a determination by the bankruptcy court on whether it was a core proceeding. The bankruptcy court ruled that the Trustee's action seeking insurance proceeds is a core proceeding under 28 U.S.C. § 157(b), equating it to a turnover proceeding, and emphasizing the nexus between such actions and efficient bankruptcy administration.

BankruptcyCore ProceedingInsurance PolicyTurnover ProceedingTheft LossChapter 7 BankruptcyDebtor's EstateFederal Arbitration ActJurisdictionCourt Reference
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cangialosi v. Gotham Construction. Co.

Plaintiffs Frank Cangialosi and Nelson Hernandez, construction workers, fell from the 20th floor of a building due to a stringer assembly failing. They sued the owner and general contractor, Ten West End Avenue Holdings, LLC and Gotham Construction Company, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. The court evaluated their motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), commonly known as the Scaffold Law. It determined that the stringer assembly served as a 'place to work' and its collapse established a prima facie violation of the statute, dismissing defendants' arguments due to inadmissible evidence. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment on liability for Cangialosi and Hernandez but denied a derivative claim by plaintiff Shanell Saunders due to insufficient evidence.

Construction Site AccidentScaffold Law ViolationLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary Judgment MotionElevation HazardFall from HeightConstruction LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityProperty Owner LiabilityPrima Facie Case
References
73
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Saint Vincent's Catholic Medical Centers

St. Vincents Catholic Medical Centers of New York, a Chapter 11 debtor, objected to a $48.75 million claim filed by the New York State Department of Labor under the N.Y. WARN Act. The core issue was whether the bankruptcy court or an administrative proceeding by the Department of Labor was the appropriate forum to liquidate this claim. The Department of Labor argued for its administrative proceeding, citing the 'police powers' exception to the automatic stay, and also requested a determination by the Commissioner on certain issues. The Debtors contended the bankruptcy court had jurisdiction due to the proof of claim being filed. The court found it had core jurisdiction to determine the allowance and amount of the claim, declining to defer to another forum, especially given multiple related WARN claims. The court also denied the Debtors' request for an injunction, stating it was not properly brought as an adversary proceeding.

BankruptcyChapter 11WARN ActJurisdictionClaim LiquidationAutomatic StayPolice Powers ExceptionInjunctionCore ProceedingProof of Claim
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 455 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