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

Longstreet Associates, L.P. v. Bevona

The case involves sixteen security guards dismissed from their jobs at the General Motors Building in Manhattan. Plaintiffs, Pembrook Management, Inc. (PMI), Longstreet Associates, L.P., and Corporate Properties Investors (CPI), sought to enjoin an arbitration proceeding initiated by the Union, Local 32B-32J of the Service Employees International Union. Plaintiffs argued the security guards were employed by a cleaning and maintenance contractor, Temco/Spartan, and thus expressly excluded from coverage under the Collective Bargaining Agreement (RAB Agreement). The Union contended that PMI was a joint employer with Temco/Spartan, meaning the guards were covered by the RAB Agreement's "work preservation provision." The court, after examining factors for joint employer status, found sufficient evidence that PMI had immediate control over the security guards in areas such as hiring, discipline, and day-to-day supervision. Consequently, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and dissolved the temporary restraining order, ruling that PMI, Longstreet, and CPI were obligated to arbitrate the dispute under the RAB Agreement.

Joint EmployerArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPreliminary InjunctionLabor RelationsSecurity GuardsUnion DisputeContract InterpretationWork PreservationSecond Circuit
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Svoboda v. Negey Associates, Inc.

Petitioner Richard J. Svoboda moved to confirm an arbitration award against his former employer, Negey Associates, related to claims of underpaid salary and benefits following his termination. Negey cross-moved to vacate or modify the award, alleging it was untimely, not final, and that the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The District Court, presided over by Judge Edward Weinfeld, denied Negey's motion, finding that Negey waived its timeliness objections and failed to demonstrate prejudice. The court also affirmed the arbitrator's lump sum award, noting that arbitrators are not required to detail their rationale unless there is a manifest disregard for the law. Finally, the court confirmed the arbitrator acted within his powers by considering vacation benefits. Consequently, Svoboda's motion to confirm the arbitration award was granted.

Arbitration LawFederal Arbitration ActAward ConfirmationAward VacaturTimeliness ObjectionWaiver DoctrineLump Sum AwardManifest DisregardArbitrator AuthorityEmployment Dispute
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1994

Twyford v. Production Associates, Inc.

Production Associates, Inc. appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Richmond County, which granted McDonald’s Corporation’s motion to dismiss a third-party complaint. The primary action involved Thomas E. Twyford, a McDonald's employee, who sued Production Associates for injuries suffered at a convention. Production Associates then sought contribution from McDonald's. The Supreme Court initially applied Pennsylvania law, leading to the dismissal of the third-party complaint. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, concluding that Illinois law should apply based on an 'interests analysis' approach, as both Production Associates and McDonald's have significant ties to Illinois. Illinois workers' compensation law, unlike Pennsylvania's or New Jersey's, does not preclude third-party contribution claims against an employer.

Personal InjuryThird-Party ActionWorkers' CompensationChoice of LawConflict of LawsContribution ClaimsSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewIllinois LawPennsylvania Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Powers v. Fox Television Stations, Inc.

Steve Powers, a former television reporter, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against Fox Television Stations, Inc. following his employment termination in 1992, citing violations of New York State and City human rights laws. Fox subsequently removed the case to federal court and moved to compel arbitration, referencing an arbitration clause within Powers' 1992 employment agreement, and to stay the ongoing action. Powers contended that his employment contract was exempt from the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA) and that his claims fell outside the arbitration clause's scope. The court, relying on Second Circuit precedents, disagreed with Powers' interpretation, concluding that the FAA's employment contract exclusion was limited to the transportation industry and that the broadly worded arbitration clause encompassed the dispute. Consequently, the court granted Fox's motions, compelling arbitration and staying the civil action.

Age DiscriminationEmployment ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActContract LawStatutory InterpretationMotion to CompelStay of ProceedingsSecond Circuit PrecedentNew York Human Rights LawArbitration Clause Scope
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 1998

Mills v. Niagara Mohawk Power Corp.

Plaintiff, a telephone linesman employed by Contel, suffered an electrical shock injury while working on a utility pole, leading him to sue Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc. and Niagara Mohawk Power Corporation (NIMO) under various Labor Law sections and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court's order denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment. On appeal, the court modified the order by granting summary judgment to Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc., dismissing all Labor Law claims against them, as they were not deemed an owner, general contractor, or supervisor of the plaintiff's work. However, a common-law negligence claim against Smith remains. The court affirmed the denial of plaintiff's motion against NIMO, citing factual questions about whether the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker. The court also affirmed the denial of NIMO's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, accepting the belatedly cited safety regulation 12 NYCRR 23-1.16. Finally, the court rejected NIMO's argument that the action was precluded by the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provisions based on a purported joint venture. The order was modified to dismiss the Labor Law claims against Smith & Smith Contractors, Inc. and otherwise affirmed.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Recalcitrant WorkerSummary JudgmentUtility Pole AccidentElectrical ShockConstruction AccidentJoint Venture DefenseNegligenceDuty to Supervise
References
13
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. 2015 NY Slip Op 06425 [131 AD3d 461]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 05, 2015

Power v. Frasier

Joseph Power, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority, and his wife, sought damages for personal injuries sustained when Power was struck by a vehicle driven by coemployee John Frasier in a parking lot. Power had received workers' compensation benefits for his injuries. The defendants, John Frasier and his father Edward M. Frasier, moved for summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court granted their motion, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the Workers' Compensation Law provides an exclusive remedy when both parties are coemployees acting within the scope of their employment. Since John Frasier was found to be acting within the scope of his employment, he was immune from direct liability, and his father could not be held vicariously liable.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawExclusivity ProvisionsCoemployee ImmunitySummary JudgmentVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentParking Lot AccidentAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Insurance Association, Inc. v. State of New York

The New York Insurance Association, Inc. and several insurance companies challenged assessment fees levied by the Department of Financial Services (DFS) and its predecessor, arguing the inclusion of 'sub-allocated programs' costs and the transfer of unused assessment funds to the State's general fund were unconstitutional. Plaintiffs contended these were unauthorized taxes and constituted a taking of private property. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, ruling that the inclusion of sub-allocated program costs was statutorily mandated and not arbitrary. It also found that the relevant law did not unlawfully delegate taxing power and that the assessments were regulatory fees, not taxes, thus constitutional provisions were inapplicable. Furthermore, the court determined that the insurers' right to a refund or credit had not vested before the statutes authorizing the transfers were enacted, negating the takings claims.

Insurance AssessmentsRegulatory FeesState BudgetFiscal PolicyConstitutional LawTaxation PowerTakings ClauseProperty RightsDepartment of Financial ServicesNew York State
References
43
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Local 144, Hotel, Hospital, Nursing Home and Allied Services Union v. CNH Management Associates, Inc.

Plaintiff Local 144 sought to confirm an arbitration award against defendant CNH Management Associates regarding unpaid wages and benefits for workers at Concourse Nursing Home. CNH cross-moved to dismiss or vacate the award, arguing it was not final and that the arbitrator exceeded his powers. The court found that the arbitrator's interim order for CNH to immediately pay over $6 million into an escrow account was ripe for confirmation, viewing it as preliminary equitable relief to preserve the integrity of the final award. Consequently, the court confirmed this specific order but dismissed other aspects of Local 144's petition as not yet ripe for judicial review. The court also rejected CNH's arguments regarding the arbitrator's authority and the nature of the award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementInterim AwardEscrow AccountJudicial ReviewRipeness DoctrineArbitrator's AuthorityEquitable ReliefLabor DisputeWages and Benefits
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,249 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