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. 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

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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Orange v. Village of Kiryas Joel

The County of Orange challenged environmental determinations by the Board of Trustees of the Village of Kiryas Joel regarding the construction of a public water supply facility and pipeline. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, annulled the determinations, and remitted the matter for a supplemental environmental impact statement. The appellate court modified the judgment, directing the preparation of an amended final environmental impact statement instead of a supplemental one, specifically requiring analysis of wetlands, sewage, wastewater discharge, a phase 1-B archaeological study, and growth-inducing effects. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's order denying the Village's motion to renew opposition to the petition, concluding that while deficiencies existed in the initial environmental review, the lead agency was not required to consider additional alternatives beyond those already identified. The case clarifies that an amended FEIS is appropriate for initial deficiencies, not an SEIS.

Environmental ReviewSEQRA ComplianceCPLR Article 78Wetlands ImpactWastewater DischargeArchaeological StudyGrowth-Inducing EffectsEnvironmental Impact StatementAmended FEISJudicial Discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. Parker Hannifan Corp.

Katherine Hall sued Parker HANNIFAN Corporation, her former employer, alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Hall claimed unequal work distribution, being "scolded" and "isolated," leading to her early retirement. Parker moved for summary judgment, arguing Hall could not establish a prima facie case of retaliation or adverse employment action, as her working conditions did not worsen after her complaints, and her retirement was voluntary. The court granted Parker's motion, finding Hall failed to demonstrate an adverse employment action or a causal connection between her complaints and any alleged adverse acts, as conditions either remained unchanged or only minimally increased her workload, not enough to constitute material adversity.

RetaliationSex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionCausal ConnectionConstructive DischargeEEOC Charge
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lafarge Building Materials, Inc. v. J. Hall, Ltd.

An unnamed plaintiff, seeking coverage as an additional insured, appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment. The plaintiff had contracted with J. Hall, Ltd. for construction work, and Hall had added plaintiff to its commercial liability policy. The underlying claim involved David Jordan, an employee of LVR, Inc., injured by a brick allegedly dropped by J. Hall, Ltd.'s employee, Jeffrey Boehlke. The plaintiff initiated a declaratory judgment action against Hall's insurers, CNA Insurance Companies and Transcontinental Insurance Company, to enforce their duty to defend and indemnify. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment, citing factual disputes over special employee status. The Appellate Division reversed, holding that coverage under an "arising out of work" endorsement is triggered by the pleadings, irrespective of special employee determinations, thereby compelling the insurers to provide defense and indemnification.

Insurance LawAdditional Insured EndorsementDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentConstruction Project LiabilityLabor LawCoverage DisputeDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySpecial Employee Doctrine
References
4
Case No. ADJ8089436
Regular

Ruben Magana vs. Jason Hall, Joel Hall, Green Tree Nursery, Seabright Insurance Company

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) has dismissed Ruben Magana's petition for removal. This dismissal is based on the advice that a settlement is pending in the case. Consequently, no further action will be taken on the petition. The file will be returned to the district office for the submission of the settlement to the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge.

Petition for RemovalSettlement PendingDismissedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJStockten District OfficeSeabright Insurance CompanyGreen Tree NurseryJoel HallJason Hall
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Held v. Hall

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addressed the compatibility of holding a county legislator position and a municipal Police Chief position concurrently. The respondent, elected as a Westchester County Legislator, sought to retain his role as Police Chief of the Town/Village of Harrison. Petitioners argued that these two offices were incompatible under common law and a local Westchester County law (Local Law No. 10). The court, presided over by John P. DiBlasi, J., found both common-law incompatibility and a statutory bar applied. It ruled that by accepting and qualifying for the county legislator position on December 3, 2001, the respondent, by implication, resigned from his Police Chief position as per established common law. Consequently, the court vacated a prior preliminary injunction that had prevented the respondent from fully exercising his powers as a county legislator, affirming his eligibility for the legislative role since December 3, 2001.

Incompatible OfficesDual Office HoldingPublic OfficerCounty LegislatorPolice ChiefCommon Law IncompatibilityStatutory BarLocal LawWestchester CountyImplied Resignation
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 138 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