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. 528032
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of IRA Jason Lucks, as Executor of the Estate of Julius Lucks, Deceased, Claimant

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before being transferred to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases. After Julius's death in June 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board ruled that CNA was the proper carrier for the death benefit claim, citing the failure to raise the applicability of Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a prior to the January 1, 2014 cutoff date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that for relief from the Special Fund under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a (1-a), both the accrual of the death benefit claim and the application for transfer of liability must occur before the January 1, 2014 deadline.

Workers' CompensationDeath BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesTransfer of LiabilityAccrual DateCutoff DateCarrier LiabilitySection 25-aMyocardial InfarctionPermanent Partial Disability
References
3
Case No. 10 NY3d 703 [2008]
Regular Panel Decision

Helmsley-Spear, Inc. v. Fishman

This case addresses whether a private nuisance claim stemming from loud drumming during union leafleting is preempted by the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). Plaintiffs, including the managing agent of the Empire State Building and nearby businesses, sought an injunction against the Union's drumming activities. While the NLRB had previously found the drumming insufficient to transform protected leafleting into unlawful conduct, the Supreme Court granted a preliminary injunction. The Appellate Division reversed, citing federal preemption. This Court reversed the Appellate Division, ruling that neither Garmon nor Machinists preemption applies. The Court emphasized that the state's interest in regulating local conduct like private nuisance outweighs potential interference with federal labor law, and loud drumming is not considered an "economic weapon" protected by the NLRA. The case was remitted for further consideration.

Private NuisanceNLRA PreemptionLabor DisputesUnion ProtestsFree SpeechState Court JurisdictionFederal Law SupremacyGarmon DoctrineMachinists DoctrineInjunctive Relief
References
11
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04741
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2018

Matter of Solomon v. Fishman

The father appealed an order of protection issued by the Family Court of Westchester County. He argued that the order should be vacated because the Family Court allegedly failed to provide reasonable accommodations for his purported disabilities under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, found that the father did not present sufficient evidence of his disability or demonstrate that his alleged condition substantially limited a major life activity. Furthermore, the court noted that the Family Court had already acceded to all of the father's reasonable accommodation requests. The Appellate Division also upheld the Family Court's denial of the father's requests for a note-taker, alterations to supervised parental access, and production of confidential records, thus affirming the order of protection.

Family LawOrder of ProtectionAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Reasonable AccommodationAppellate ReviewParental AccessFamily Court Act Article 8Disability RightsEvidentiary StandardsJudicial Discretion
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2001

Fishman v. Mills

Petitioners Michael Fishman, president of a union, and American Building Maintenance Company of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their CPLR article 78 petition as time-barred. The case stemmed from the award of a cleaning contract to respondent Fedcap Rehabilitation Services, Inc. as a preferred source provider, displacing American Building's workers. Petitioners challenged Fedcap's qualification, alleging it employed individuals not 'severely' disabled as required by State Finance Law § 162. The Supreme Court found the proceeding untimely, ruling that the challenge to Fedcap's preferred source provider status became final and binding by August or September 1999, well before the October 2000 commencement. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, concluding the core challenge was to Fedcap's initial qualification, not later contract approvals, thus rendering the proceeding time-barred.

Administrative LawTimelinessStatute of LimitationsCPLR Article 78Preferred Source ProviderDisabled EmploymentGovernment ContractsPublic ProcurementUnion RightsContract Award
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03154 [205 AD3d 1160]
Regular Panel Decision
May 12, 2022

Matter of Lucks v. Volt Info. SCI

Julius Lucks suffered a work-related myocardial infarction in 1980, leading to permanent partial disability, with liability initially against Continental Casualty Company (CNA) before transferring to the Special Fund for Reopened Cases in 1998. After Lucks' death in 2013, his executor, Ira Jason Lucks, filed a claim for consequential death benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that CNA was the proper carrier, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a relief was unavailable because the issue of its applicability was not raised until after the January 1, 2014, statutory cutoff date. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, holding that despite the claim accruing before the cutoff, the application for liability transfer to the Special Fund was untimely.

Workers' Compensation Death BenefitsSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesLiability TransferWorkers' Compensation Law § 25-aStatutory Cutoff DateClaim AccrualInsurance Carrier LiabilityEmployer ResponsibilityDisability ClaimMyocardial Infarction Injury
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2012

V.E.C. Corp. v. Hilliard

This case involves V.E.C. Corp. of Delaware (VEC), an aircraft leasing business, suing Ira and Bridget Hilliard, New Light Church, Putnam County National Bank, Dean Ryder, and Nancy Molloy. VEC alleged that Putnam breached loan agreements and committed fraud, while the Hilliard Defendants breached a Fee Agreement. The court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss all claims. It found VEC's contract claims against Putnam time-barred under New York law, its fraud claims legally insufficient due to lack of direct reliance, and its breach of contract claims against the Hilliard Defendants invalid as the Fee Agreement was assignable to Putnam.

Motion to DismissBreach of ContractFraudulent ConcealmentStatute of LimitationsAircraft LeasingSecured TransactionsAssignment of RightsNew York LawNew Jersey LawFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center v. Prendergast

The case involves a special proceeding initiated by Long Island Jewish Hillside Medical Center (LIJ) against Manufacturers Hanover Trust Co. (MHT) and Maurice Prendergast to compel MHT to turn over assets from Prendergast's individual retirement accounts (IRAs) to satisfy a judgment. LIJ obtained a judgment against Maurice and Margaret Prendergast for $15,059.46. MHT, holding approximately $5,909.44 in Prendergast's IRAs, sought judicial guidance on whether these funds were subject to attachment, citing potential ERISA preemption and CPLR exemptions for trust funds. The court analyzed whether IRAs fall under ERISA's anti-alienation provisions or CPLR 5205 exemptions, distinguishing IRAs from qualified pension plans. Ultimately, the court ruled that IRA funds are neither preempted by ERISA nor exempt under CPLR 5205, granting LIJ's request for a turnover order.

Individual Retirement Accounts (IRAs)ERISA PreemptionJudgment EnforcementAttachment of AssetsTurnover OrderCivil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR)Pension Plan vs. IRAFiduciary DutyNew York State LawSecured Creditors
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perlman v. Fidelity Brokerage Services LLC

Hildegard Perlman sued Fidelity, Ameriprise, Jonathan Blass, and Wendy Perlman, alleging violations of ERISA regarding her late husband Norman Perlman's IRA. She claimed entitlement to all IRA assets due to alleged lack of spousal consent for the transfer of Keogh plan assets into an IRA. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plan was not governed by ERISA and that claims were time-barred. The Court granted summary judgment for defendants, determining Norman's Keogh plan was not an ERISA plan as it did not cover employees, and even if ERISA applied, the claims were untimely. The Court denied Perlman's cross-motion, declined jurisdiction over Ameriprise's interpleader, dismissed remaining state law claims without prejudice, and denied attorney's fees to all parties.

ERISAIRAKeogh PlanSpousal ConsentSummary JudgmentStatute of LimitationsInterpleaderDeclaratory Judgment ActFiduciary DutyEmployee Benefit Plan
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freedman v. Freedman

The Plaintiffs commenced an action against Estelle Freedman and Frederick Fagelson, as executor of Robert Freedman's estate, seeking to recover money under theories of equity. Robert Freedman, prior to his death, executed a new will eliminating bequests to Estelle, but did not change the beneficiary designation of his Schwab IRA account, which named Estelle. The Plaintiffs argued unjust enrichment and monies had and received, contending Robert intended to exclude Estelle from the IRA. The Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings. The court, applying New York's EPTL § 13-3.2, found that a beneficiary designation must be changed in writing and that general testamentary statements in a will are insufficient, especially since Robert's 1997 will did not specifically reference the Schwab account. The court also held that quasi-contractual claims are not permitted when a valid and legally enforceable instrument (the beneficiary designation) exists. Therefore, the motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Estate LawIRA BeneficiaryUnjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissNew York EPTL 13-3.2Testamentary IntentFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Quasi-Contract
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 1999

In re the Claim of Fishman

The claimant, a shipping clerk, was terminated for violating the employer's policy against consuming alcohol on company time, after he admitted drinking beer during his lunch break and returning to work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that consuming alcohol on the job, especially in violation of established company policy, constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court rejected the claimant's defense that he was unaware of the policy because he had not read his employee handbook, finding substantial evidence to support the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductAlcohol Policy ViolationWorkplace AlcoholEmployee DischargeUnemployment BenefitsAppeal Board DecisionAffirmed DecisionEmployer PolicyLunch Break Violation
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 29 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