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

Pig Newton, Inc. v. Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan

Plaintiff Pig Newton, Inc. commenced an action against the Boards of Directors of the Motion Picture Industry Pension Plan, Health Plan, and Individual Account Plan, seeking a declaration that certain provisions of the Plans’ Trust Agreements were invalid and unenforceable. The Defendants counterclaimed for delinquent contributions under ERISA. The core dispute revolved around "Controlling Employee Provisions" in the Trust Agreements, which obligated employers to contribute for Controlling Employees for a specified number of hours and weeks regardless of actual hours worked. Pig Newton argued these provisions were invalid, not properly incorporated, or conflicted with collective bargaining agreements (CBAs). The Court, applying federal common law and an arbitrary and capricious standard of review for the Directors' interpretation, found the provisions valid, properly incorporated, and not in conflict with the CBAs, concluding that Szekely (Pig Newton's sole owner) qualified as a Controlling Employee. Consequently, the Court denied Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Plaintiff's complaint and awarding Defendants the sought-after contributions, interest, auditors’ fees, and liquidated damages.

ERISAMultiemployer PlanPension PlanHealth PlanDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentTrust AgreementsCollective Bargaining AgreementsControlling Employee ProvisionsDelinquent Contributions
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. C-4199
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education of the Union-Endicott Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Board of Education of Union-Endicott Central School District initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination that certified the Endicott Teachers' Association as the exclusive negotiating agent for former members of OTASN. The School Board argued that permitting a non-attorney to represent the Teachers' Association violated Judiciary Law §§ 478 and 484, and that PERB's director improperly made the decision instead of the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing. The court agreed with the School Board on both points, finding PERB's rule allowing lay representation to contravene state law and the director's decision arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court annulled PERB's determination and remanded the matter for a new hearing. Additionally, a motion to dismiss by Kathleen Osiecki, president of OTASN, was granted as OTASN was not formally a party to the proceeding.

labour relationspublic employmentcollective bargainingjudicial reviewPERBnon-attorney representationdue processadministrative law judgeunion certificationarbitrary and capricious
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 1981

Claim of Bock v. Burns, Van Kirk, Greene & Kafer

The respondent Workers’ Compensation Board moved to dismiss appeals filed by the appellant on March 27, 1980, May 7, 1980, and August 18, 1980. The court granted the Board's motion to dismiss the March 27 and May 7 appeals as moot due to a subsequent board determination. The August 18, 1980 appeal was dismissed because the underlying board decision, which merely referred the case to an impartial medical specialist, was nonfinal and therefore not appealable. The claimant's motion dated January 29, 1981, was granted only to the extent that the original board file could be provided as an exhibit. Another motion by the claimant dated March 16, 1981, seeking vacatur of decisions, consolidation of appeals, and change of venue, was denied.

Appeal DismissalMootnessNonfinal DecisionWorkers' Compensation AppealsMotion PracticeJudicial ReviewCase ReferralMedical SpecialistBoard FileConsolidation of Appeals
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gelb v. Board of Elections

Plaintiff Irving A. Gelb (pro se) filed a case ("Gelb II") against the Board of Elections in the City of New York and its individual members and employees, alleging violations of his First and Fourteenth Amendment rights concerning write-in voting procedures in the 1997 elections for Bronx Borough President. This case mirrored an earlier, unsuccessful action ("Gelb I") regarding the 1993 elections. Gelb claimed that the Board failed to provide adequate means or instructions for write-in voting, particularly in primary elections without an "opportunity to ballot" petition. The court denied Gelb's motions for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the Board's procedures were constitutionally permissible, that no pervasive unfairness was demonstrated, and that sufficient state law remedies were available. Consequently, his state law claims were also dismissed.

Election LawWrite-in VotingSummary JudgmentFederal ClaimsState Law RemediesDue ProcessEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lederman v. Board of Education

The case involves plaintiffs moving to punish the Board of Education and Superintendent William Jansen for contempt of court, alleging violation of a 1949 judgment by Mr. Justice Hearit. The previous judgment declared parts of the Feinberg Law (Civil Service Law § 12a, Education Law § 3022, and Board of Regents' Rules § 254) null and unconstitutional, enjoining the Board from enforcing them. Dr. Jansen later questioned a teacher about Communist party membership, claiming authority under Education Law § 2523, not the Feinberg Law. The court, presided over by Justice Beldook, found no subterfuge and concluded that the inquiry was instituted independently of the invalidated Feinberg Law. The court determined that adjudicating the legality of the inquiry under Education Law § 2523 was beyond the scope of this contempt motion and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the December 16, 1949 judgment. The motion for contempt was denied.

Contempt of CourtFeinberg LawTeacher Loyalty OathsCommunist Party AffiliationDue ProcessFirst Amendment RightsGovernment EmploymentInvestigatory PowersPublic School TeachersStatutory Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fortunato v. Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner appealed two rulings: a Supreme Court judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 application to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to renew his license, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The Board had denied license renewal due to petitioner's failure to provide records, reapply, and demonstrate competency. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, ruling that the proceeding was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations. Additionally, the court found that mandamus was not appropriate for a discretionary act and that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious.

License RenewalMandamusCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardStatute of LimitationsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDiscretionary ActNonattorney Representative
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Roa v. King Gene Cab Corp.

The court denied the motion to dismiss the appeal without costs, determining that while the appellant's standing in the workers' compensation proceeding is an issue for the appeal itself, the appellant clearly possesses standing to appeal the board's decision which denied its motion to reopen. This decision ensures the appeal process can continue to address the substantive issues, including the appellant's participation rights.

Motion to DismissAppealStandingWorkers' CompensationMotion to ReopenBoard DecisionProcedural
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Macri v. Central Service Center

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from a portion of an Appellate Division order. The Appellate Division order had previously affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Board determination. This determination specifically denied an application for reconsideration and/or a full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal from this particular portion of the order was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the legal principle that this part of the order does not constitute a final determination of the proceeding under the Constitution. All other aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Appellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationMotion to AppealFinality of OrderConstitutional LawBoard Review DenialReconsideration DenialLegal Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Overhead Door Co.

The Workers' Compensation Board moved to dismiss an appeal lodged by an employer and its carrier against a board decision dated April 25, 1980. This board decision had rescinded a referee's prior dismissal of a claimant's contact dermatitis claim for untimely filing and reopened the case. The employer and carrier contended the board erred by reopening as the claimant failed to seek timely review. The court determined that the claimant's application was for reopening and reconsideration, falling within the board's broad continuing jurisdiction, not an application for review under section 23. Therefore, the court granted the board's motion, dismissing the appeal on the grounds that the board's decision to reopen was nonfinal and the appellants' legal arguments lacked merit.

Workers' Compensation LawAppeal DismissalNonfinal DecisionBoard ReviewReopening CaseReconsiderationTimely FilingContinuing JurisdictionContact DermatitisJudicial Panel
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 31,438 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