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. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. CA 15-01122
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2016

KING, III, JOSEPH v. MALONE HOME BUILDERS, INC.

Plaintiff Joseph King III commenced this Labor Law action against Malone Home Builders, Inc., seeking damages for injuries from a fall through an unguarded stairwell during construction. King moved for partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and to dismiss the defendant's special employee defense, which claimed workers' compensation as the sole remedy. The Supreme Court conditionally granted King's motion for liability but denied the dismissal of the special employee defense, citing a factual dispute. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division granted King's motion in its entirety, dismissing the defendant's special employee defense based on collateral estoppel from a prior Workers' Compensation Board determination, and affirmed the partial summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) liability for the plaintiff.

Labor LawWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelSpecial Employee DoctrineSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentUnguarded StairwellPersonal InjuryEmployer Liability
References
11
Case No. 4964 157576/12
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2018

Bradley v. HWA 1290 III LLC

Edward Bradley, an elevator mechanic, died from electrocution while working in a building owned by HWA 1290 III LLC. His estate sued for wrongful death, alleging common-law negligence and Labor Law violations due to unsafe conditions, specifically inadequate lighting and uncovered electrical transformers. The Supreme Court denied defendants' motion for summary judgment on these claims. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, finding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the defendants created the dangerous conditions or had actual or constructive notice of them. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed the complaint. A dissenting opinion argued that issues of fact existed regarding the lighting, lack of transformer covers, and absence of a required helper.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathElectrocutionElevator AccidentWorkplace SafetyLabor Law Section 200Labor Law Section 241(6)Premises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00653 [179 AD3d 1412]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2020

Matter of James v. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc.

Claimant Christina James sought workers' compensation benefits after sustaining a work-related ankle injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge established an employer-employee relationship and awarded benefits. Home Comfort Assistance, Inc. appealed this decision to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied due to incompleteness; specifically, referring to attached pages for the "Basis for Appeal" instead of providing the information directly on the form RB-89. Home Comfort then appealed the Board's denial to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the Board acted within its discretion by refusing to consider an application that did not fully comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1).

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewIncomplete ApplicationForm RB-89Administrative ReviewDiscretionary AuthorityProcedural ComplianceThird DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipJurisdictional Defect
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Small v. General Nutrition Companies, Inc.

Plaintiffs Disabled in Action (DIA) and Thomas K. Small (Small), representing themselves and a class of wheelchair users, sued General Nutrition Companies, Inc. (GNC) for alleged violations of Title III of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York City Human Rights Law, claiming GNC stores were inaccessible. Defendant GNC moved to dismiss the action for lack of standing and to deny class certification. The court granted GNC's motion regarding DIA's organizational standing (with prejudice) and associational standing claims (without prejudice, with leave to amend). For plaintiff Small, the court denied GNC's motion concerning one specific GNC store where Small established standing, but granted it for other stores (without prejudice, with leave to amend). The court deferred ruling on defendant's motion to deny class certification.

ADA Title IIIStandingOrganizational StandingAssociational StandingWheelchair AccessibilityArchitectural BarriersClass ActionMotion to DismissInjunctive ReliefInjury in Fact
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gooshaw v. Wing

A disabled adult, relying on SSI and workers' compensation, relocated his mobile home to an undeveloped plot in Cortland County after eviction, lacking essential utilities. Faced with building code violations, he sought emergency assistance from the Cortland County Department of Social Services (DSS) for property improvements. DSS denied his application, recommending alternative housing, a decision affirmed by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which reasoned that his needs were foreseeable and not a sudden catastrophe. The court upheld this denial, confirming that the requested capital improvements fell outside the scope of emergency assistance for adults (EAA), which is intended for unforeseen events. It was concluded that the application was correctly assessed under emergency safety net assistance, which permits considering cost-effective alternatives, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Emergency AssistanceDisabled AdultSupplemental Security IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMobile HomeBuilding Code ViolationsCapital ImprovementsSocial Services LawForeseeabilityCatastrophic Emergency
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2004

People v. Arotin

The case concerns an appeal by an unnamed defendant against an order from the Saratoga County Court, which classified him as a risk level III sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant, previously convicted in Ohio for attempted gross sexual imposition and classified as a "sexually oriented offender," contested the New York classification upon his relocation, arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause should compel New York to recognize his lower Ohio classification and that the evidence was insufficient for a Level III designation. The appellate court affirmed that states have the power to apply their own registration requirements, rejecting the Full Faith and Credit argument. However, it found that specific factors used to justify the level III classification, namely "deviate sexual intercourse" and "history of substance abuse," lacked clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order and remitted the matter to the County Court for reclassification.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Level ClassificationFull Faith and Credit ClauseRecidivismSexually Oriented OffenderAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceOhio LawNew York LawSex Offender Assessment
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Merrill Lynch Realty Associates, Inc. v. Burr

Merrill Lynch Realty Carll Burr, Inc. (MLRCB) and Merrill Lynch Realty Associates, Inc. (MLRA) sued Carll S. Burr III and other defendants over the use of the 'Burr' name in real estate. The dispute originated from a 1980 acquisition agreement and a subsequent employment contract with restrictive covenants. A previous settlement in 1984 also restricted Carll S. Burr III's use of the name. After MLRCB ceased using the 'Carll Burr' name, Carll S. Burr III established 'Carll Burr Realty'. The plaintiffs sought specific performance of the 1984 stipulation, damages, and a permanent injunction. The appellate court found that the lower court improvidently granted a preliminary injunction, citing sharply disputed facts regarding an alleged oral agreement to modify the contract and the plaintiffs' potential abandonment of the 'Burr' name. Additionally, the plaintiffs' sale of their real estate business undermined claims of irreparable injury, making preliminary injunctive relief unwarranted.

Preliminary InjunctionRestrictive CovenantsNon-compete ClauseOral ModificationContract DisputeTrade NameBusiness SaleIrreparable HarmBalancing of EquitiesDisputed Facts
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pellegrini v. Reidy

Petitioner's application for medical assistance was denied due to the transfer of $30,000 to her daughters within 24 months of the application, which was presumed to be for the purpose of qualifying for assistance. The court rejected the petitioner's argument that the transfer was for care provided by her daughters, finding insufficient evidence to rebut the statutory presumption. The court also dismissed the petitioner's claim that the County Department failed its duty to protect her interests, noting this issue was not raised during the fair hearing. However, the court found merit in the petitioner's contention that the County Department failed to comply with the fair hearing determination requiring proper notice of ineligibility. Consequently, the determination was modified to mandate the Montgomery County Commissioner of Social Services provide the required notice, and as modified, confirmed.

medical assistancesocial services lawasset transfereligibilityCPLR article 78fair hearingadministrative reviewstatutory presumptionMontgomery Countydenial of benefits
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

General Nutrition Investment Co. v. General Vitamin Centers, Inc.

Plaintiffs General Nutrition Centers, Inc. and General Nutrition Investment Company filed an action against Defendants General Vitamin Centers, Inc. and Nayma Cheema for trademark infringement and unfair competition relating to the Plaintiffs' "GNC" marks. Following the Defendants' failure to appear, a default judgment was sought. Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy issued a Report and Recommendation, advising the court to grant the default judgment, impose a permanent injunction, and award attorney's fees and costs. District Judge Nicholas G. Garaufis subsequently adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation in its entirety, finding no clear error. Consequently, the Defendants were permanently enjoined from using the infringing marks and ordered to pay $9,740.04 in fees and costs to the Plaintiffs.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionFederal Trademark DilutionNew York General Business LawDefault JudgmentPermanent InjunctionAttorney's FeesCosts AwardedLanham ActLikelihood of Confusion
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 810 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