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. 76 Misc 2d 769
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 1974

Coates v. City of New York

Coates, a former sanitation worker for the City of New York, was involuntarily retired due to an accident disability and subsequently sued to recover monetary compensation for unused terminal leave, accrued vacation time, and unscheduled holiday work periods. The Supreme Court, Queens County, initially granted Coates' motion for summary judgment, awarding him $3,406.53. The City of New York appealed this decision. The appellate court modified the order-judgment by reducing the award to $1,283.62, finding that the collective bargaining agreement did not stipulate cash payments for terminal leave and accrued vacation, nor did statutory authority mandate such benefits upon immediate retirement. However, the court affirmed the portion of the award pertaining to unscheduled holiday work periods, upholding the defendant's liability for that specific claim.

Employment LawPublic Employee BenefitsAccident Disability RetirementSummary Judgment AppealCollective Bargaining AgreementMunicipal LawAdministrative CodeConstitutional LawDamages CalculationWorkers' Rights
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00599 [224 AD3d 428]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2024

Matter of New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. v. Garrison Prop. & Cas. Ins. Co.

This case involves two appeals by New Millennium Pain & Spine Medicine, P.C. against Garrison Property & Casualty Insurance Company and GEICO Casualty Company. New Millennium sought to vacate master arbitration awards that denied its claims for no-fault benefits for medical services. The Supreme Court denied these applications. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decisions, stating that an arbitrator's award will not be set aside unless it is irrational. The court also addressed the argument regarding a 20% wage offset in no-fault benefits, finding it unavailing under Insurance Law § 5102 (b). Ultimately, New Millennium was not entitled to attorneys' fees as it was not the prevailing party.

No-fault benefitsarbitration awardvacaturinsurance lawwage offsetappellate reviewmedical servicesno-fault policy exhaustionattorneys' feesCPLR Article 75
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc. v. Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurance dispute over the duty to defend and indemnify. The plaintiff, Stellar Mechanical Services of New York, Inc., sought a declaratory judgment against Merchants Insurance of New Hampshire, claiming primary insurer obligations in an underlying personal injury action. Stellar, insured by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company, had subcontracted duct work to Serge Duct Design, which was insured by Merchants. Serge was obligated to name Stellar as an additional insured. After a worker's injury and subsequent lawsuit, Merchants disclaimed coverage. The appellate court modified the lower court's order, ruling that Merchants is obligated as the primary insurer to defend Stellar from the time the second amended complaint was served, but not to indemnify Stellar. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for an assessment of costs incurred by American Empire Surplus Lines Insurance Company.

Insurance CoverageAdditional Insured StatusDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifyPrimary InsurerExcess InsurerSummary JudgmentContract LawSubcontract AgreementPersonal Injury Action
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Lead Industries Ass'n

This appellate decision addresses an action brought by the City of New York, the New York City Housing Authority, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation against lead paint manufacturers and their trade association. The plaintiffs seek indemnity and restitution for costs incurred in abating lead paint hazards in their buildings. The court reverses lower court orders that had dismissed these indemnity and restitution claims, clarifying that such causes of action are independent of underlying time-barred tort claims and accrue when loss is suffered by the party seeking indemnity. The opinion emphasizes that these equitable remedies aim to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure that the party primarily responsible for the hazard bears the financial burden. Additionally, the court addresses jurisdictional challenges against newly added defendants, ruling that further discovery is warranted.

Lead Paint LitigationIndemnity ClaimsRestitution ClaimsStatute of LimitationsProducts LiabilityFraud ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentPublic Health SafetyEnvironmental HazardsSuccessor Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1981

State v. New Hampshire Merchants Insurance

This case involves cross-appeals concerning insurance coverage for a State employee, David L. Sinnamon, after an accident. The Attorney-General defended Sinnamon when New Hampshire Merchants Insurance Company, Inc. and Travelers Indemnity Company both refused to provide coverage, despite a prior ruling establishing their respective primary and secondary duties to defend. The State then commenced an action seeking reimbursement for legal fees incurred. Initially, summary judgment was granted against Merchants but dismissed against Travelers due to perceived lack of contractual privity. The appellate court modified this decision, concluding that both insurers breached their independent duty to defend Sinnamon, thus granting summary judgment on liability against both companies and remanding for a damages hearing.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendSummary JudgmentCross AppealsReimbursement of Legal FeesPublic Officers LawState Employee DefenseBreach of ContractAppellate ReviewDeclaratory Judgment
References
3
Case No. 96
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2017

American Economy Insurance Company v. State of New York

The New York Court of Appeals examined the constitutionality of a 2013 amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a, which closed the Special Fund for Reopened Cases to new applications. Plaintiff insurance companies argued this imposed unfunded liabilities for policies finalized before the amendment, violating constitutional clauses. The Appellate Division had found the amendment unconstitutional as retroactively applied. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that even assuming a retroactive impact, it was constitutionally permissible under the Contract, Takings, and Due Process Clauses. The court found the amendment did not impair contracts, identify a vested property interest, or violate due process, as its retroactive application served a rational legislative purpose to benefit New York businesses.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LawRetroactive LegislationContract ClauseTakings ClauseDue ProcessSpecial Fund for Reopened CasesConstitutional LawLegislative AmendmentPolicy Liability
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department

Petitioners, the New York Times Company and Jim Dwyer, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking the disclosure of records from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), related to the events of September 11, 2001. Their request included oral histories of FDNY personnel and radio communications. The FDNY denied parts of the request, citing exemptions for law enforcement purposes, intra-agency materials, and personal privacy. The court ruled that the FDNY failed to demonstrate the applicability of the law enforcement exemption. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of factual portions of the oral histories, the 911 tapes and transcripts of family members who waived privacy, and non-intra-agency parts of operator, dispatcher, and unit communications, while denying petitioners' request for attorneys' fees.

Freedom of Information LawFOILPublic RecordsSeptember 11World Trade CenterFDNYOral HistoriesRadio CommunicationsPrivacy ExemptionLaw Enforcement Exemption
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 1992

Aetna Casualty & Surety Co. v. Greater New York Mutual Insurance

This case involves an appeal concerning an insurer's claim for contribution. Aetna Casualty & Surety Company, the liability insurer for Trio Drug Corporation and additional insured 58 Realopp Corporation, sought contribution from Greater New York Mutual Insurance Company, Trio's workers' compensation carrier. Aetna had settled an underlying injury action where it represented both Realopp and Trio, and subsequently sued for 50% of the settlement amount. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial of Aetna's summary judgment motion and the granting of Greater New York's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court applied the anti-subrogation rule, finding that Aetna could not assert a subrogated claim against its own insured, Trio, due to potential conflicts of interest arising from its dual representation in the underlying action.

anti-subrogation ruleconflict of interestsummary judgmentcontributionworkers' compensationliability insurancethird-party claimcommon law indemnityappellate reviewinsurer dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Buckley v. Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc.

Dan Buckley, a former management employee, sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc. for violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York State Executive Law § 296, alleging discrimination based on his disability as a rehabilitated alcohol/substance abuser and termination due to his inability to provide a urine sample for drug testing. The court had previously dismissed his complaint but allowed him to replead, finding he adequately alleged disability but not discrimination based on it. In his amended complaint, Buckley conceded his bladder condition, which prevented him from urinating on command, was not an ADA disability but argued Con Edison's drug testing procedures were unreasonable. The court granted Con Edison's motion to dismiss, concluding that failure to accommodate a non-disability does not constitute an ADA violation, and Buckley failed to allege that his actual disability (alcohol/substance abuse) was not reasonably accommodated.

Americans with Disabilities ActDisability DiscriminationDrug TestingReasonable AccommodationAlcohol AbuseSubstance AbuseTermination of EmploymentMotion to DismissFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12New York State Executive Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 15,596 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