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 the Incorporation of the Village of Harrison

This proceeding, brought under Village Law section 2-224, challenged the validity of an election held on October 16, 1974, concerning the incorporation of the Village of Harrison within the Town of Harrison. The petitioner alleged five irregularities, including biased transportation, misleading communications from town officials, voter misinformation at polling places, an inconvenient polling location, and improper voter registration. Despite a strong majority (85%) in favor of incorporation, the petitioner sought to invalidate the results. The court determined that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the alleged irregularities were numerous enough to alter the election's outcome, concluding that the substantial majority for incorporation would not have been reversed. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Election ChallengeVillage IncorporationVoter IrregularitiesTown of HarrisonSufficiency of EvidenceMajority VoteCampaign MisconductPolling PlaceVoter RegistrationVillage Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frycek v. Corning Inc.

This case involves a personal injury claim by Steven C. Frycek, who fell 15 feet during construction while working for Precision Steel Erectors, Inc., a subcontractor for Amthor Steel, which was contracted by Corning Incorporated and Morganti Incorporated. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). Defendants and third-party plaintiffs sought indemnification. The court granted conditional contractual indemnification to Corning Incorporated and Morganti Incorporated against Amthor Steel and conditional common-law indemnification to Amthor Steel against Precision Steel Erectors, Inc. Precision's argument that the third-party action was barred by the Omnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform Act was denied, as the court found the amendment should not be applied retroactively. Ultimately, the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment was denied due to questions of fact regarding safety devices and the plaintiff's use of them.

Labor LawPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationContractual IndemnificationOmnibus Workers’ Compensation Reform ActRetroactive Application of LawStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. INCORPORATED VILLAGE OF FARMINGDALE

Plaintiffs, a group of Hispanic individuals, sued the Incorporated Village of Farmingdale alleging discriminatory housing practices under the Fair Housing Act. They contend the Village, through an informal 'Secatogue Avenue Redevelopment Project' (SARP) and its actions surrounding the renovation of a 54-unit apartment building where they resided, caused their displacement and deprived them of affordable housing. Plaintiffs assert both disparate impact and disparate treatment claims, citing disproportionate effects on the Hispanic population, anti-Hispanic sentiment in the community, and procedural deviations by the Village in approving the building's renovation. The Village moved for summary judgment, arguing lack of standing, no formal redevelopment plan, and no discriminatory animus. The Court denied the Village's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding the Village's role in the redevelopment and the existence of discriminatory intent or disproportionate impact.

Fair Housing ActDiscriminatory Housing PracticesDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentSummary Judgment MotionRedevelopment PlanAffordable HousingHispanic PopulationMunicipal Government LiabilityProcedural Deviations
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 1997

Lehmuller v. Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor

Laura R. Lehmuller, a female police officer, sued the Incorporated Village of Sag Harbor alleging discrimination based on gender, pregnancy, and disability, and retaliation for filing an EEOC claim, under Title VII, ADA, and Section 1983. The Court previously dismissed her ADA and Section 1983 claims via summary judgment. Lehmuller moved for reconsideration of the Section 1983 claim dismissal, arguing her EEOC complaint was a matter of public concern and her right-to-petition rights were distinct. The Court granted reconsideration, finding material issues of fact regarding whether her speech was a matter of public concern and the Village's motive in directing her back to work. Consequently, the Court vacated the original summary judgment for the Village on the Section 1983 claim, denying both parties' summary judgment motions on that particular cause of action. Her request for certification to the Second Circuit was denied.

DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationFirst Amendment RightsSection 1983 ClaimEEOC ComplaintSummary Judgment MotionMotion for ReconsiderationPublic Employee Rights
References
22
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06909 [165 AD3d 940]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2018

Matter of Lavin v. Incorporated Vil. of Muttontown

Jennifer Lavin, a police officer for the Muttontown Police Department, was injured in the line of duty and applied for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. Her application was denied by the Chief of Police, prompting her to initiate a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted Lavin's petition, annulled the denial, and awarded her benefits. On appeal, the Incorporated Village of Muttontown and the Chief of Police contended that the Workers' Compensation Board's prior determination did not collaterally estop them. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the denial of benefits was arbitrary and capricious, as the record demonstrated a direct causal relationship between Lavin's job duties and her injuries.

Police Officer BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCPLR Article 78 ProceedingArbitrary and CapriciousCollateral EstoppelWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCausal ConnectionLine of Duty InjuryAppellate Division Second DepartmentEmployment Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maidman v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point

Petitioners Mitchel Maidman and Adam Hanft challenged two resolutions by the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Sands Point, dated May 9, 2000. These resolutions amended the master plan for the Village Club at Sands Point, allowing changes to access roads following a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied their petition, dismissing the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court concluding that the Board adequately addressed environmental concerns and did not improperly segment the SEQRA review. The court found that the Board properly identified relevant areas of environmental concern regarding traffic conditions and provided a reasoned elaboration for its determination.

CPLR Article 78SEQRAEnvironmental ReviewMaster Plan AmendmentVillage Club at Sands PointTraffic CirculationIngress and EgressSegmentationJudicial ReviewNassau County
References
6
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07027
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2017

Claim of Levine v. Incorporated Village of Freeport

Claimant, a police officer, was injured when he jumped over a fence while chasing a fleeing suspect, leading to a workers' compensation claim for injuries to his right knee, right ankle, and back. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) awarded benefits for a 15% schedule loss of use to his right foot and leg. The self-insured employer, Incorporated Village of Freeport, sought review of this decision, but their application was found to be both defective for lacking a required cover sheet and untimely as the defect was cured after the 30-day filing period. Furthermore, the employer failed to provide proof of service. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the employer's application, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseApplication for ReviewTimelinessProof of ServiceAppellate PracticeAdministrative LawProcedural DefectsPolice Officer
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 16, 1992

Farrington Close Condominium Board of Managers v. Incorporated Village of Southampton

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Southampton's "negative declaration" regarding a proposed park development. The petitioners, boards of managers of adjacent condominiums, contended that the Board violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the 17-acre park project. The court found that the park constituted a Type I action, and the Board's negative declaration was insufficient as it lacked a "reasoned elaboration" and failed to demonstrate a "hard look" at potential significant environmental effects. Furthermore, the Board conducted an improper "segmented review" by only considering the initial phase of the park's development instead of the comprehensive long-range plan. Consequently, the judgment dismissing the proceeding was reversed, the petition was granted, and the Board's determination was annulled.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementType I ActionSegmented ReviewLand DevelopmentPark ProjectSuffolk CountyCondominiums
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Incorporated Village of Cedarhurst v. Hanover Insurance

Justice Levine's dissenting opinion critiques the majority's decision to affirm, arguing that it improperly bypassed the Appellate Division's finding of ambiguity in pollution exclusion clauses concerning raw sewage in the Village's insurance policies. The dissent contends that the majority's focus on the flood-like nature of the discharge, rather than its polluting character, was an unpreserved argument inconsistent with legal precedents. Levine asserts that raw sewage is unequivocally a pollutant, and under the policy's 'arising out of' clause and a 'but-for' test, damages from sewage discharge should be excluded from coverage, irrespective of whether specific pollution-related injuries were explicitly alleged in the underlying complaints. Therefore, the dissent advocates for a reversal, concluding that the insurer has no duty to defend or indemnify the Village.

Insurance policyPollution exclusion clauseRaw sewageContaminantDuty to defendDuty to indemnifyProperty damageBodily injuryEnvironmental lawArising out of clause
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 619 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