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 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M. Cristo, Inc. v. State of New York Office of General Services

This dissenting opinion by Staley, Jr., J. concerns the rejection of a low bid from a petitioner by the Office of General Services. The rejection was based on the petitioner's unresolved labor dispute with Laborers Local No. 190, which the Office of General Services feared would cause disruption and delay to the South Mall project, a 'time of the essence' contract. Staley, Jr., J. argues that the State's action was lawful, citing State Finance Law § 174 and previous cases that permit bid rejection in the best interests of the State, especially when a labor dispute threatens project completion. The dissent distinguishes this case from precedents involving mere threats of union action. However, the majority decision, which this opinion dissents from, reversed the judgment and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Labor DisputeBid RejectionState ContractPublic WorksTime of EssenceJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionProcurement LawNonunion WorkersProject Delay
References
3
Case No. ADJ7892653
Regular
Jul 22, 2016

PETER ALVAREZ vs. CALIFORNIA NATIONAL GUARD, STATE OF CALIFORNIA, OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL, UNINSURED EMPLOYERS BENEFITS TRUST FUND, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted the defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the order that joined the Office of the Attorney General as a party. The Board found the Attorney General was not a necessary party as the applicant clearly identified the California National Guard as their employer. Furthermore, the Board raised a jurisdictional issue, as National Guard service under Title 32, which may apply here, generally precludes state workers' compensation benefits. The case is returned to the trial level for an evidentiary hearing to determine jurisdiction.

Petition for RemovalOrder Joining Party DefendantCalifornia National GuardState Active DutyTitle 32Title 10Inactive Duty TrainingMilitary and Veterans CodeNachbaurJurisdiction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Grasso

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal from the denial of defendant Richard A. Grasso's CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss four causes of action brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of the State of New York. The Attorney General alleges that Grasso, as former Chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), received unlawful and excessive compensation, violating Not-For-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL) sections concerning reasonable compensation, board approval of salaries, and prohibitions against loans to officers. The dissent argues that the Attorney General has standing under broad parens patriae power to protect the state's economic interests and public confidence in the NYSE, given its vital role in the economy. It asserts that the complaint sufficiently states claims for constructive trust, money had and received, violation of N-PCL 715 (f) regarding salary approval, and violation of N-PCL 716 concerning illegal loans, and thus the motion to dismiss was correctly denied.

Executive CompensationNot-For-Profit Corporation LawCorporate GovernanceParens PatriaeAttorney General StandingMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConstructive Trust
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1978

Hirschorn v. Attorney-General

This case involves petitioners' motion to quash subpoenas issued by the Attorney-General of the State of New York, who was investigating potential violations of the Donnelly Antitrust Act by doctors. The Attorney-General's inquiry focused on allegations that doctors conspired to boycott workmen's compensation and no-fault cases. Petitioners argued that the investigation infringed upon their First and Fifth Amendment rights, that the subpoenas were vague and overbroad, and that the medical profession was exempt from the Donnelly Act. The court denied the petitioners' motion to quash, upholding the Attorney-General's authority to conduct such investigations and issue subpoenas. Concurrently, the court granted the Attorney-General's cross-motion, dismissing the petition and quashing a subpoena served upon the Chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

Antitrust LawSubpoenaDonnelly Antitrust ActAttorney General InvestigationMedical ProfessionWorkers' CompensationNo-Fault LawConstitutional RightsFreedom of AssociationDue Process
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00962 [202 AD3d 524]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2022

4A Gen. Contr. Corp. v. James

Plaintiffs, 4A General Contracting Corp. and others, sought to recover a $1 million payment made to the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) under a plea agreement, which resolved a criminal case concerning failure to pay prevailing wages on public work projects. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, ruling that the $1 million was a restitution payment, not an escrow, and plaintiffs had no valid claim to recover it. The court also found no basis for plaintiffs to recover from RLI Insurance Co., who received a portion of the restitution through a separate settlement. Furthermore, the denial of plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss RLI Insurance Co.'s counterclaim for indemnification was affirmed.

Prevailing wagesPlea agreementRestitutionGrand larcenyCertified payroll recordsIndemnification counterclaimSummary judgmentCriminal case resolutionAppellate reviewAttorney General
References
0
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03395 [217 AD3d 1237]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2023

Matter of Cagino v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

Petitioner Paul F. Cagino appealed the dismissal of his application to review a New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) determination. SDHR found no probable cause regarding Cagino's claim that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) engaged in retaliatory employment practices. Cagino, a former OAG employee, alleged that OAG's statements in court papers during a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) proceeding constituted adverse employment action. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, ruling that OAG's statements were legitimate defensive measures in litigation, not unlawful retaliation. The court concluded that SDHR's no probable cause finding was rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

RetaliationDiscriminationFreedom of Information Law (FOIL)Adverse Employment ActionHuman Rights LawProbable CauseAppellate ReviewDefensive LitigationPublic Officers LawEmployment Law
References
20
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

Lee Myles Associates Corp. v. Abrams

The petitioners, Lee Myles Associates Corporation and Charles George, filed a CPLR article 78 petition seeking to vacate a determination by the Attorney-General of the State of New York dated June 10, 1982. The Attorney-General had refused to register Lee Myles's franchise offering prospectus due to Charles George's prior felony conviction. Petitioners contended this rejection was arbitrary and violated their due process rights. The court found that the petitioners were denied procedural due process, specifically the opportunity for a full hearing, to confront witnesses, and to subpoena witnesses. Consequently, the court granted the petition to the extent of vacating the Attorney-General's determination and ordered a new de novo hearing on the franchise application, while denying the request for interim relief.

Procedural Due ProcessFranchise Sales ActGeneral Business LawFelony ConvictionAdministrative HearingArticle 78 PetitionDe Novo HearingFranchise RegistrationDue Process RightsProperty Rights
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 7,040 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