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
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham & Straus, Inc. v. International Union of Operating Engineers, Local Union No. 30

Abraham & Straus (A&S) sought a preliminary injunction against defendant Local 30 to stop picketing and job actions concerning engineer and mechanic staffing at a new Roosevelt Field store. A&S argued these actions violated their collective bargaining agreement's no-strike and arbitration clauses. Local 30 contended the dispute was purely representational, not arbitrable, and that Boys Markets relief did not apply to picketing alone. The court found the dispute arbitrable due to the broad arbitration clause and the union's previous intent to arbitrate. It also determined that Boys Markets injunctions could cover picketing, especially when it caused work stoppages, ultimately granting A&S's request and ordering arbitration.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ClauseNo-Strike ClausePicketingWork StoppageBoys Markets ExceptionLabor Management Relations ActFederal Court Jurisdiction
References
14
Case No. ADJ10132416
Regular
Sep 04, 2019

ARMANDO SALAZAR vs. DOTY BROS. EQUIPMENT COMPANY, AIG CLAIMS for NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, STARR INDEMNITY & LIABILITY COMPANY

This case concerns the determination of the cumulative trauma injury date and the corresponding liability period for a workers' compensation claim. The Appeals Board clarified that the date of injury under Labor Code section 5412 is July 30, 2005, through September 30, 2015, based on when the applicant should have reasonably recognized his disability as work-related, evidenced by his attorney filing a claim. Crucially, the Board distinguished this from the liability period under Labor Code section 5500.5, which was established as July 30, 2014, through July 30, 2015, the applicant's last day of work. This revised liability period confirmed that Starr Indemnity & Liability Company was within coverage for the claim.

Labor Code Section 5412Labor Code Section 5500.5cumulative trauma perioddate of injuryinjurious exposureknowledge of disabilityApplication for Adjudication of Claimpetition to dismisscoverageamended findings
References
3
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2007

Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority v. Brigid Hynes-Cherin

The Rochester-Genesee Regional Transportation Authority (RGRTA) and its subsidiary, Regional Transit Service (RTS), moved to stay a Federal Transit Administration (FTA) decision dated July 30, 2007. The FTA had ordered RGRTA to cease providing school bus services on routes deemed "prohibited school bus operations" and barred RGRTA from receiving certain federal funds. RGRTA appealed this decision under the Administrative Procedure Act and sought a stay pending judicial review. The court, presided over by Judge Larimer, granted the stay in part, postponing the effective date of the FTA's order until October 1, 2007. This partial stay was granted primarily to prevent irreparable harm and potential chaos in student transportation due to the imminent start of the school year, despite the court not being convinced that RGRTA was likely to prevail on the merits or would suffer irreparable harm. The court emphasized the public interest in ensuring orderly student transportation. All other aspects of the plaintiff's motion for a stay were denied.

School Bus TransportationFederal Transit Administration (FTA)Stay OrderAdministrative Procedure Act (APA)Judicial ReviewPublic InterestIrreparable HarmTripper ServicePublic TransportationCompetition Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 2008

Jaworek v. Sears Roebuck & Co.

Claimant suffered a knee injury in July 2007 while working for an employer, with a portion of her average weekly wage attributable to concurrent employment. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) directed the employer to pay the full benefits award of $500 per week, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (6). The employer sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but the WCLJ denied it, citing 2007 amendments to the Workers’ Compensation Law. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed this decision, stating that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) (h) (2) (A) barred such claims for injuries on or after July 1, 2007. The court affirmed the Board’s decision, rejecting the employer's statutory interpretation argument.

Workers' Compensation ReimbursementSpecial Disability FundConcurrent EmploymentStatutory InterpretationLegislative Intent2007 AmendmentsAppellate ReviewBenefits AwardFund ClosureNew York Law
References
2
Case No. ADJ6659926 ADJ6659223
Regular
Jan 06, 2012

MICHELLE JIMENEZ vs. DENCO SALES COMPANY, ACE PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY, ARGONAUT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns applicant Michelle Jimenez's claim for additional temporary disability benefits for lumbar spine injuries sustained from a specific injury in July 2007 and a cumulative trauma injury ending in July 2008. The Appeals Board found that while the 2007 injury's temporary disability indemnity limit under Labor Code section 4656(c)(1) expired in August 2009, the applicant is entitled to remaining temporary disability under section 4656(c)(2) for the 2008 cumulative trauma injury. Because the applicant had only received 69 weeks of temporary disability for the cumulative trauma injury and is entitled to 104 weeks within five years of the injury date, she is awarded an additional 35 weeks of temporary disability indemnity prior to July 17, 2013.

Labor Code section 4656temporary disability indemnityaggregate disability paymentscompensable weeksperiod of two yearsperiod of five yearsdate of commencementdate of injurycumulative trauma injuryspecific injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2010

Claim of Castelli v. NRG

The claimant developed asbestosis and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease due to asbestos exposure during employment, with a disablement date of November 13, 2008. The employer and its workers’ compensation carrier sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund, but the Workers' Compensation Board denied the application. This denial was based on 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8) that closed the Fund to claims with disablement dates after July 1, 2007. The employer appealed, arguing the time limit was inapplicable to dust disease claims and that statutory definitions supported their interpretation. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the statutory language and legislative history unequivocally intended to close the Fund to all new claims, including dust diseases, with disablement dates post-July 1, 2007.

asbestosasbestosischronic obstructive pulmonary diseaseSpecial Disability FundWorkers' Compensation Law § 15(8)2007 amendmentsdate of disablementdust diseaseoccupational diseasereimbursement claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1998

Claim of Baldo v. Daily News

This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision setting the date of disablement for claimant Joseph Baldo, a former newspaper pressman who suffered from work-related lung cancer, as July 29, 1992. Baldo's widow filed for death benefits after his passing in 1994, leading to a dispute between workers' compensation carriers over liability. The appealing carrier contended that the disablement date should be earlier, citing diagnoses in 1990 or 1991. However, the court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's discretion in selecting a disablement date and finding no medical evidence to establish disability prior to July 29, 1992, even though earlier diagnoses existed.

Workers' Compensation LawLung CancerDate of DisablementAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCarrier ResponsibilityOccupational DiseaseMedical EvidenceClaimant DisabilityBoard Discretion
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,806 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