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
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Robles v. Merrill Lynch/WFC/L, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied the defendants' motion to compel further deposition of the plaintiff's social worker. This decision was subsequently appealed and unanimously reversed by the appellate court. The appellate panel determined that the plaintiff had waived the applicable privilege under CPLR 4508. This waiver occurred because the plaintiff's bill of particulars affirmatively placed her mental condition in issue by alleging related injuries. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to compel the deposition.

Mental ConditionDepositionPrivilegeWaiverSocial WorkerCPLR 4508Appellate ReversalMotion to CompelBill of ParticularsDiscovery
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Turi v. Five L. Enterprises, Inc.

In this workers' compensation case, the claimant's spouse died in a 1993 work-related accident, leading to an award of death benefits. The employer's workers’ compensation carrier was directed to deposit a substantial sum into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) but failed to do so. The claimant sought to impose a 20% penalty on the carrier for this untimely payment, arguing it violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). The Workers’ Compensation Board determined that the claimant lacked standing to request such a penalty. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, clarifying that issues regarding late deposits into the ATF are between the ATF and the carrier, not the claimant, and are governed by separate regulations (12 NYCRR 393.2).

Aggregate Trust FundDeath BenefitsPenalty ImpositionTimely DepositStandingWorkers' Compensation CarrierWorkers' Compensation BoardLate PaymentActuarial ComputationJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Albertson v. Fidelity & Deposit Co.

The court ruled that rules 113 and 114 of the Rules of Civil Practice do not provide for granting summary judgment in an equity action concerning the determination of title for adverse claimants to a fund held by Fidelity and Deposit Company of Maryland. Consequently, the previous judgment and order were unanimously reversed, with costs awarded, and the motion was denied.

Summary JudgmentEquity ActionCivil ProcedureAdverse ClaimsFund DisputeReversed Judgment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brewster v. First Trust & Deposit Co.

The court denied applications for a stay and to dismiss an appeal. The memorandum clarifies that the filing of a bond did not trigger an automatic stay under sections 594 and 615 of the Civil Practice Act. The court reasoned that the order appealed from was not solely for the payment of money as defined by section 594, and the appellants' bond was not a statutory bond because the order concerned payments by the First Trust & Deposit Company, not the appellants. The court also noted that it had previously, in its discretion, denied a stay, and it adhered to that decision.

Stay applicationAppeal dismissalAutomatic stayCivil Practice ActBondStatutory bondPayment orderDiscretionary stayAppellate procedure
References
1
Case No. ADJ3213121 (LBO 0361407)
Regular
Aug 30, 2010

GLENDA M. BRUCE vs. COMPTON COMMUNITY COLLEGE, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, reversing a prior order that quashed the applicant's deposition. The applicant amended her claim to include hair loss and a fall after her last deposition. The Board found good cause for an additional deposition, as the defendant did not have notice of these new claims prior to the previous depositions. Therefore, the applicant is required to submit to a fifth deposition specifically addressing the hair loss and fall allegations.

Petition for RemovalQuashed DepositionCompensable ConsequencesAmended ApplicationIndustrial InjuryHair LossFallPrior NoticeFifth DepositionRescinded Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oi Tai Chan v. Society of Shaolin Temple, Inc.

In this vigorously contested action alleging fraud and breach of contract, the court addressed several motions. Defendant Shi's motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the nature of significant monetary transfers from the plaintiff to a religious organization. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to resume defendant Shi's deposition, sanctioning defense counsel Kenneth Jiang for repeatedly instructing his client not to answer questions in defiance of prior court directives. Additionally, the court denied Shi's cross-motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, citing a lack of necessary testimony, cumulative evidence, and the motion's untimely and potentially retaliatory nature. A special referee was appointed to supervise remaining discovery and settlement efforts.

Fraudulent InducementBreach of ContractDiscovery DisputeSummary Judgment MotionDeposition ObstructionAttorney SanctionsCounsel DisqualificationRules of Professional ConductAudio Recording AdmissibilityQueens County Court
References
68
Case No. 149-140, 149-141
Regular Panel Decision

Budget Dress Corp. v. Joint Board of Dress & Waistmakers' Union

The Chief Judge ruled on multiple discovery motions in two consolidated actions, one alleging Sherman Act violations and the other concerning the Labor Management Relations Act. Plaintiff moved to vacate defendants’ deposition notices and subpoenas, establish deposition priority, and appoint a federal judge to supervise the process. The court denied most of the plaintiff’s motions, upholding the defendants' subpoenas and granting them priority in conducting depositions. Furthermore, the plaintiff's notice to take depositions was partially vacated, and their notice to produce was entirely vacated due to insufficient specificity. The application for a federal judge to supervise depositions was also denied, with a suggestion for a master if cooperation falters.

DiscoveryDepositionsSubpoenasSherman ActLabor Management Relations ActFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureAntitrustLabor LawPriority of DiscoveryJudicial Supervision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Turdo v. Dellicato Vineyards

The case addresses whether the New York State Insurance Department Liquidation Bureau is required to make a mandatory deposit into the Aggregate Trust Fund (ATF) for workers' compensation death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board had ruled that the deposit was mandatory, reversing its previous stance. However, the appellate court found that the plain language of Workers' Compensation Law § 27 does not mandate such deposits for the Liquidation Bureau, as it is not a 'stock corporation or mutual association'. While the Board possesses discretionary power to require deposits from 'insurance carriers', the court noted that the Board's decision was solely based on the mandatory provision. Therefore, the matter was remitted to the Board to consider if a discretionary deposit would be appropriate.

Workers' Compensation Law § 27Aggregate Trust FundLiquidation BureauDeath BenefitsMandatory DepositDiscretionary DepositInsurance CarrierStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewRemand
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 606 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