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. 2025 NY Slip Op 02370 [237 AD3d 1139]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 23, 2025

Whitfield v. Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Assn.

The plaintiff, John "Divine G" Whitfield, doing business as Divine G Entertainment, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which granted the defendants' motion to dismiss his amended complaint. Whitfield had sued Law Enforcement Employees Benevolent Association (LEEBA) and its members for fraud and unjust enrichment, alleging inadequate payment for website and paralegal services. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that Whitfield failed to adequately allege injury for fraud and that civil conspiracy claims stand or fall with the underlying tort. The court also determined that defendants were not unjustly enriched and that the plaintiff failed to establish an employer-employee relationship necessary for Labor Law and FLSA claims. Additionally, claims for intentional and negligent infliction of emotional distress were dismissed for failing to meet rigorous standards, and piercing the corporate veil was not adequately pleaded.

FraudUnjust EnrichmentEmployment RelationshipQuantum MeruitLabor LawFLSAEmotional DistressCorporate VeilPiercing Corporate VeilPleading Sufficiency
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. (LFF), an organic farm, initiated construction of three single-family dwellings for employees within a resource management area of the Adirondack Park without a permit. The Adirondack Park Agency (Agency) issued a cease and desist order and sought enforcement, arguing these were 'single family dwellings' requiring permits, not exempt 'agricultural use structures'. LFF challenged the Agency's jurisdiction and interpretation, asserting that dwellings associated with agricultural use should be considered 'agricultural use structures'. The court annulled the Agency's determination, concluding that single-family dwellings 'directly and customarily associated with agricultural use' can qualify as 'agricultural use structures' under the APA Act, thereby dismissing the Agency's enforcement action.

Adirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsResource Management AreasPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationSubdivision of LandFarm Worker HousingArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Determination
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2001

Silva v. Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency

Jose Silva, an employee of Mar Jea Equipment, Inc., was allegedly injured during construction work on property owned by the Incorporated Village of Hempstead Community Development Agency. Silva sued the Agency for personal injuries. The Agency, in turn, initiated a third-party action against Mar Jea for indemnification. Mar Jea moved to dismiss this third-party complaint, arguing that the Agency's claim for common-law indemnification was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Although the Agency contended it had a claim for contractual indemnification, the subcontract between Mar Jea and the general contractor required written consent from the Agency, which was never obtained. Consequently, the Supreme Court granted Mar Jea's motion to dismiss, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentThird-Party ActionIndemnificationContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationSubcontractCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawSummary Judgment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of City of New York v. Bloomberg

The New York City Council initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel the Mayor and the City of New York to enforce the Equal Benefits Law. This local law mandated that city agencies could only contract with firms providing equal employment benefits to domestic partners and spouses. The Mayor refused enforcement, arguing the law was preempted by state and federal statutes. The Appellate Division dismissed the proceeding, a decision upheld by this court. The Court concluded that the Equal Benefits Law was preempted by General Municipal Law § 103 due to competitive bidding requirements and by ERISA for its regulation of employee benefit plans, rejecting the Council's market participant argument.

Equal Benefits LawPreemptionCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawERISAEmployee BenefitsDomestic PartnersSpousal BenefitsMarket Participant ExceptionArticle 78 Proceeding
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Silberberg v. Board of Elections

This is an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of New York Election Law § 17-130(10), which prohibits voters from displaying their marked ballots. The plaintiffs, who wish to take and share "ballot selfies," argue that the law infringes upon their First Amendment right to freedom of speech. The court considered the standing of the plaintiffs, the standards for a preliminary injunction, and the likelihood of success on the merits, including whether polling places constitute a public forum, the law's viewpoint neutrality, and its reasonableness in protecting election integrity against voter bribery and intimidation. The court ultimately denied the motion for a preliminary injunction, finding that the law is a reasonable, viewpoint-neutral regulation in a nonpublic forum, and that granting an injunction so close to the election would disrupt the electoral process and not serve the public interest.

Election LawFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechBallot SelfiesVoter IntimidationVote BuyingPreliminary InjunctionPublic Forum DoctrineViewpoint NeutralityReasonableness Standard
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital

A proceeding was initiated by the State Division of Human Rights to enforce an order against Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital. The hospital had discriminated against a female employee by denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disability, despite being a self-insured employer providing benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The State Division's order, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, directed the hospital to pay benefits, furnish proof, and establish a nondiscrimination policy. The hospital failed to comply, leading to this enforcement action almost two years after the Appeal Board's order. The court granted the petition for enforcement, denied the hospital's cross-motion, found the enforcement proceeding timely and not barred by laches, and affirmed that the original discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy Disability BenefitsEnforcement ProceedingHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation LawTimelinessLachesSubstantial EvidenceEmployer DiscriminationDisability Benefits Denial
References
4
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

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The Attorney-General of New York initiated an action against Consolidated Edison of New York (Con Ed) seeking civil damages and an injunction to enforce compliance with the Right to Know Law (Public Health Law art 48; Labor Law art 28). This law mandates employers to provide information and training to employees concerning toxic substances in the workplace. Con Ed moved to dismiss the action, presenting two main arguments: first, that the Attorney-General lacked authority to sue without a prior investigation and determination by the Department of Labor, and second, that primary jurisdiction over enforcement of the Right to Know Law rested with the Department of Labor and the Department of Health. The court denied Con Ed's motion on both counts, ruling that Labor Law § 882 (1) unambiguously grants the Attorney-General the authority to bring such actions without a prerequisite administrative investigation. Furthermore, the court found that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply, as the administrative agencies had not yet promulgated comprehensive regulations to enforce the law, leaving a regulatory void that the judiciary was empowered to address to protect employee rights.

Right to Know LawToxic SubstancesEmployee InformationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationPrimary JurisdictionAdministrative LawEnforcement AuthorityLabor LawPublic Health Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cruz

The dissenting opinion argues against affirming a restitution award to Nassau County. The majority held Nassau County is a "victim" under Penal Law § 60.27 for sick leave and medical bills paid to a police officer injured during a burglary. The dissent contends that statutory interpretation and public policy preclude reimbursing a municipal law enforcement agency for foreseeable operating costs, including personnel costs. It asserts that sick leave payments are not "actual out-of-pocket loss" and, referencing People v Rowe, law enforcement agencies are not "victims" for normal operating expenses. The dissent criticizes the distinction between operational and employment functions, arguing that costs for officer injuries are inherent to crime-fighting and should not be recovered from the defendant without specific statutory authorization.

restitutionPenal Law § 60.27victim statuslaw enforcement agencyoperating costssick leavemunicipal liabilitypolice officer injurystatutory interpretationlegislative intent
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 15,239 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