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
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF JASON B. v. Novello

This appeal addresses whether res judicata bars the New York State Office of Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities (OMRDD) from reevaluating an applicant's eligibility for developmental disability benefits. Petitioner Jason B. was initially deemed eligible in 2003, but OMRDD later terminated his services in 2006 following a reevaluation prompted by his service provider. After a fair hearing affirmed the termination, Jason B. initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, leading the Appellate Division to apply res judicata to the 2003 determination and annul the termination. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, clarifying that the 2003 eligibility finding was not a quasi-judicial determination and thus not subject to res judicata. The Court concluded that OMRDD's 2006 termination of benefits was supported by substantial evidence.

Res JudicataAdministrative LawDevelopmental DisabilityMedicaid EligibilityOMRDD ServicesHome and Community Based Services WaiverMental Hygiene LawCPLR Article 78 ProceedingSubstantial EvidenceAgency Review
References
11
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04445
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 18, 2024

Argueta v. Hall & Wright, LLC

The plaintiff, Jose Daniel Santiago Argueta, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling from a sloped roof during a home renovation project. He subsequently sued the property owner, 520X Residential, LLC, and the construction manager, Hall and Wright, LLC, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to both defendants, dismissing the Labor Law causes of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, ruling that Hall and Wright, LLC, lacked the necessary supervisory control to be considered a statutory agent, and 520X Residential, LLC, qualified for the homeowner's exemption, as the work was for residential use and they did not direct or control the work.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentConstruction AccidentHomeowner ExemptionStatutory AgentSupervisory ControlElevation-Related HazardAppellate ReviewRoofing Work
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Baker Hall, Inc.

Baker Hall, Inc. initiated a proceeding to annul a State Division of Human Rights determination that found the company unlawfully discriminated against a black employee by terminating him for sleeping on the job, while a white employee received only a suspension for a similar rule violation. The State Division had ordered re-employment and back pay. The court, however, annulled the determination, finding a lack of substantial evidence to support the commissioner's finding of discrimination. The court noted strong evidence that the complainant was indeed asleep on the job multiple times and that his termination was justified, distinguishing his situation from that of the white employee. The matter was remitted to the State Division for further proceedings to assess if Baker Hall's process of handling the charges against the complainant was discriminatory, while rejecting arguments concerning delay and res judicata.

DiscriminationRace DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSleeping on the JobRule ViolationDisparate TreatmentHuman Rights LawExecutive LawDue ProcessArbitrator's Findings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Jason B.

The case involves a petition by the Commissioner of Social Services to adjudicate 9-month-old Jason B. and his two siblings as neglected children. The respondent mother made threats to harm her children, stating she would "take the children with her" and asking "What do I have to do to get help, something stupid like dangling one of my kids over the ferry?". The court found that these threats, coupled with the mother's history of mental illness, including diagnoses of "Schizophrenia with Borderline Features" and "Major Depression, Recurrent with Psychotic Features", established an imminent danger to the children. The court ruled that evidence of present or past harm is not required when a parent exhibits a capacity to carry out serious threats, thereby adjudicating the children neglected. They were continued on remand to the Commissioner of Social Services pending a dispositional hearing.

Child NeglectParental ThreatsMental IllnessImminent DangerFamily Court ActChild ProtectionSchizophreniaMajor DepressionPreponderance of EvidenceRisk of Harm
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Colvin

Plaintiff Aaron Hall sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of Social Security, Carolyn W. Colvin, which denied his application for disability insurance benefits. Plaintiff argued that the Administrative Law Judge's decision lacked substantial evidence and applied erroneous legal standards. The Court reviewed cross-motions for judgment on the pleadings. The Commissioner's motion was denied, and the Plaintiff's motion was partially granted. The case was remanded for further administrative proceedings due to the ALJ's failure to properly weigh the opinions of treating and consultative physicians and an unsupported credibility analysis of the plaintiff's symptoms.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActAdministrative Law JudgeMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacityTreating Physician RuleCredibility AssessmentVocational ExpertRemandLumbar Radiculopathy
References
24
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07472 [176 AD3d 1374]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of HALL v. DAVIS

William Hall (father) initiated a child support proceeding against Sarah Davis (mother) after their child began living with him. The Support Magistrate imputed income to the mother and ordered her to pay child support. The mother appealed, arguing that Family Court erred in upholding the Support Magistrate's income imputation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that while imputing income was appropriate, the specific amount imputed was not supported by the record, considering the mother's lack of current licensure and her full-time work on a farm. The court remitted the matter for a redetermination of the mother's support obligation.

Child supportImputed incomeFamily CourtAppellate DivisionParental obligationIncome calculationSupport MagistrateDiscretionFarming incomeSocial worker
References
6
Case No. 534777
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2023

In the Matter of the Claim of Jason Kallman

Jason Kallman, a sanitation worker, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by concealing prior compensable injuries, leading to disqualification from future indemnity benefits and forfeiture of a schedule loss of use (SLU) award. The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination that Kallman made false statements or omissions regarding prior injuries to his right and left feet. However, the court reversed the mandatory penalty of forfeiture for the 16.25% SLU award, finding the compensation directly attributable to the misrepresentation had already been accounted for. The court also reversed the discretionary penalty of permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits, ruling that the Board's rationale was unsupported by the record.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseFraudMisrepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPrior InjuriesFalse StatementMaterial FactAppellate ReviewCredibility Issue
References
12
Case No. CV-22-1926
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

In the Matter of the Claim of Jason Golisano

Claimant Jason R. Golisano filed for workers' compensation benefits in August 2021 alleging work-related injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim for a left wrist injury in September 2021. The employer and its carrier filed an application for review with the Workers' Compensation Board on November 3, 2021, which was denied as untimely because it was filed beyond the 30-day limit. The carrier appealed, contending the Board should have exercised its discretion to accept the late application, citing a short delay and the COVID-19 pandemic. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board did not abuse its broad discretion in denying the untimely application for review.

Workers' CompensationUntimely ApplicationBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewWCLJ Decision30-Day LimitJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawProcedural IssueCOVID-19 Impact
References
4
Case No. CA 15-00506
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2016

PEARSON, JASON v. WALLACE, JEREMY

Plaintiff Jason Pearson, an employee, sustained injuries at a construction site due to a falling incident involving a ladder and a concrete truck chute. He moved for partial summary judgment on liability against the general contractor, LeCesse Construction Services, LLC, and the property owner, Geneva General Hospital, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Pearson appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that while Pearson initially met his burden, the defendants and third-party defendants successfully raised triable issues of fact regarding the accident's proximate cause and the plaintiff's potential sole proximate cause through disregard of safety directives.

Construction AccidentLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentLadder AccidentProximate CauseContributory NegligenceWorkplace SafetyGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilitySubcontractor Liability
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 141 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