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
Apr 22, 2009

Bryant v. One Beekman Place, Inc.

Plaintiffs, purchasers of a cooperative apartment, voluntarily subjected themselves to the cooperative's rules, including an alteration agreement for renovations. Their proposed renovations went beyond approved plans, and they failed to submit revised plans, leading to specific objections from the cooperative board's architect regarding fire hazards and other issues. Despite these requirements, plaintiffs continued non-compliant construction, prompting the board to suspend work as authorized by the agreement. The board briefly padlocked an access point to prevent workers during the plaintiffs' absence until compliance was achieved. The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the granting of summary judgment, finding that the cooperative's actions were non-malicious, valid, and professionally executed in addressing the unapproved work.

Cooperative ApartmentsRenovation DisputesSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyProperty LawAppellate ReviewBoard DiscretionAlteration AgreementStop Work Order
References
4
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Judicial Dissolution of Good Co. General Store Cooperative

Petitioners Diane Mohney and Laura Ferris sought judicial dissolution of Good Company General Store Cooperative under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, or alternatively, an accounting and judgment for their capital accounts. The court denied the petition for dissolution, finding petitioners lacked standing as their membership shares were automatically transferred upon termination of employment according to the cooperative's by-laws and Cooperative Corporations Law. However, the court granted the petitioners' alternative request, ordering Good Company to account for and pay the value of each petitioner’s capital account within 60 days, in compliance with its By-Laws. All other requests for judgment were denied without prejudice.

Worker CooperativeJudicial DissolutionBusiness Corporation Law § 1104-aCooperative Corporations LawMembership Share RedemptionInternal Capital AccountsBy-Laws DisputeCorporate StandingEmployment TerminationMember Rights
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plains/Anadarko-P Ltd. Partnership v. Coopers & Lybrand

The case involves three limited partnerships suing Coopers & Lybrand over allegedly false financial statements audited by Coopers for Trans-Western Exploration, Inc. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim concerning fraud by accountants, finding the pleading sufficient. However, the second claim, mirroring the first with additions of aiding and abetting and fiduciary duty, was dismissed as redundant. Five pendent state law claims were also dismissed due to discretionary pendent jurisdiction. Finally, an eighth claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was dismissed for insufficiency, as the auditing engagement did not satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve and file an amended complaint.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b)Securities fraudSection 10(b) claimAiding and abettingFiduciary dutyPendent jurisdictionState law claimsRICO ActAuditing engagement
References
3
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 34431[U]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2007

Sykes v. RFD Third Avenue 1 Associates, LLC

The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision to dismiss a negligent misrepresentation claim brought by condominium purchasers against Cosentini Associates, the mechanical engineering firm that designed the building's HVAC systems. The dissent contends that the plaintiffs sufficiently alleged a 'special relationship' with Cosentini, akin to privity, necessary for such a claim. It highlights that Cosentini provided HVAC descriptions for the offering plan, knowing purchasers would rely on them. The dissenting judge differentiates the current case from Parrott v Coopers & Lybrand and upholds the precedent set in Board of Mgrs. of Astor Terrace Condominium v Schuman, Lichtenstein, Claman & Efron, arguing that Parrott did not implicitly overrule Astor Terrace. The dissent concludes that the plaintiffs' allegations are sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

Negligent MisrepresentationProfessional MalpracticePrivity of ContractSpecial RelationshipOffering PlanHVAC SystemsCondominium LawMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
10
Case No. CV-24-1199
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Tawon Cooper

Claimant Tawon Cooper sustained work-related injuries and was awarded schedule loss of use (SLU) benefits. The central dispute involved the calculation of counsel fees for claimant's attorney, Grey & Grey, LLP, specifically whether fees should be based on the gross SLU award or the net SLU award after deducting employer's advance wage payments. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled for fees based on the net SLU award, a decision upheld by the full Board after review. Claimant's attorney appealed this determination to the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, interpreting Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (c) to mandate the deduction of all "previous payments," including wages, before calculating counsel fees, and upheld the Board's discretion to make counsel fees a lien against the claimant's net SLU award.

Workers' Compensation Law § 24Counsel Fees CalculationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Lien against AwardEmployer ReimbursementStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewWage AdvanceNet SLUGross SLU
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalter v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

Plaintiff James D. Stalter, Jr. sued the Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Rockland County (BOCES) under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York Executive Law, alleging discrimination due to his cerebral palsy and speech impediment. BOCES moved for summary judgment, arguing Stalter was not disabled, did not suffer an adverse employment decision, and his claims were untimely filed with the EEOC. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, denied BOCES's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on all key arguments. The court determined that Stalter's inability to speak constituted a substantial limitation of a major life activity, and there was sufficient evidence that BOCES regarded him as disabled. Furthermore, the court found factual disputes regarding whether Stalter was denied overtime and a shift change, and if the continuing violation doctrine or equitable tolling applied to his EEOC complaint's timeliness.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentCerebral PalsySpeech ImpairmentEmployment DiscriminationAdverse Employment ActionEEOCStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation
References
32
Case No. ADJ798960
Regular
May 22, 2009

JUAN NAVARRO vs. MARANTZ COOPERATIVE PURCHASERS, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the applicant's claim that the wrong permanent disability rating schedule was applied. The Board affirmed the use of the 2005 PDRS, finding no comprehensive medical report predating January 1, 2005, indicating permanent disability. However, the Board rescinded the prior award and returned the matter for further medical development regarding the applicant's permanent disability factors, as required by the recent *Almarez/Guzman* en banc decision. A dissenting opinion argued that the applicant waived the issue of AMA Guides impairment rating by not raising it at trial.

WORKERS COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDMARANTZ COOPERATIVE PURCHASERSEMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE GROUPJUAN NAVARRO2005 PERMANENT DISABILITY RATING SCHEDULEALMAREZ/GUZMANAMA GUIDES TO THE EVALUATION OF PERMANENT IMPAIRMENTLABOR CODE SECTION 4660(D)PERMANENT AND STATIONARY STATUSMEDICAL-LEGAL REPORT
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Durant v. North Country Adirondack Cooperative Insurance

This appellate case concerns an insurer's duty to defend. Plaintiffs, farm owners including Robert Durant, sought reimbursement from North Country Adirondack Cooperative Insurance Company after the insurer denied coverage for a negligence action brought by Wayne Ashley, who was injured on their farm. The insurer cited a farm employee exclusion in their policy. Although the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the insurer, the appellate court determined that the insurer's duty to defend was established by the complaint. The court found the insurer failed to provide conclusive evidence that the farm employee exclusion applied, thus implying a reversal of the lower court's decision regarding the duty to defend.

Insurance LawDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionFarm EmployeeNegligence ActionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationBurden of ProofExtrinsic Evidence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Presser v. Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc.

Dorothy Presser sued her former employer, Key Food Stores Cooperative, Inc., under various labor laws, including the WARN Act, alleging age discrimination and improper notice of mass layoff. The court had previously dismissed some of her claims. Presser sought to amend her individual WARN Act claim into a class action. The court granted her motion to amend the complaint to include a class of non-releasor employees who did not sign releases, finding that this class could potentially meet the requirements for class certification. However, the court denied her motion to include a class of employees who had signed releases, determining that common questions of law or fact would not predominate over individual issues of waiver, thus making such a class unsuitable for certification under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23.

Age DiscriminationWARN ActClass ActionEmployment LawMass LayoffMotion to AmendRule 23Federal Civil ProcedureEastern District of New YorkReleases and Waivers
References
26
Showing 1-10 of 470 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