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

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walton v. Devi Corp.

Plaintiff, an employee of Krum & Sons, Inc., sustained a debilitating eye injury on January 2, 1990, when struck by a wood chip while engaged in tree removal for Devi Corporation. He subsequently initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Devi, Berenson Pari-Mutuel of New York, Inc., and Roy Howard & Associates, asserting violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) for lack of protective eyewear. Supreme Court dismissed the complaint via summary judgment, leading to an appeal by the plaintiff. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim. The court concluded that the tree removal task did not fall under the statutory definition of "construction work," as it neither affected the structural integrity of the motel sign nor involved its construction, thereby rendering Labor Law § 241 (6) inapplicable.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 241(6)Construction Work DefinitionSummary JudgmentTree RemovalWood Chipping AccidentScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewEmployer LiabilityOwner Liability
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

In Re Paris Packaging, Inc.

Vernon Moore filed suit against his former employer, Paris Packaging, Inc., alleging retaliatory discharge and discrimination. The trial court initially ordered arbitration in accordance with a collective bargaining agreement but later reversed its decision, finding Moore could not afford the arbitration costs. Paris Packaging sought a writ of mandamus from the appellate court to compel arbitration. The appellate court determined that the trial court abused its discretion by misapplying the law regarding the union's obligation to cover arbitration expenses and the applicability of the collective bargaining agreement to all employees within the bargaining unit, regardless of union membership. Consequently, the appellate court conditionally granted the petition for writ of mandamus.

Retaliatory DischargeDiscriminationArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementMandamusAbuse of DiscretionDue ProcessArbitration CostsUnion MembershipTexas Law
References
17
Case No. 03-12-00568-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2014

Thomas O. Bennett, Jr., James B. Bonham Corporation, and Wayne H. Paris v. Randy Reynolds, Larry Grant and Richard T. Miller

This case, referred to as Bennett IV, is an appeal by Thomas O. Bennett, Jr., James B. Bonham Corporation, and Wayne H. Paris (Appellants) against Randy Reynolds, Larry Grant, and Richard T. Miller (Appellees). Appellants challenged a final take-nothing summary judgment on claims of fraud, business disparagement, tortious interference, and conspiracy. Their claims stemmed from allegations that Appellee Miller made a false statement about Bennett's involvement in drugs and prostitution, which they claimed prejudiced the jury in a prior case (Bennett I). Appellants also appealed sanctions imposed against them and their attorney, Paris. The Court of Appeals affirmed the district court’s judgment, finding no error in the venue transfer, the summary judgment based on lack of reliance, limitations, and causation, or the sanctions awarded due to the frivolous nature and improper purpose of the lawsuit.

SanctionsVenue TransferSummary JudgmentFraudBusiness DisparagementTortious InterferenceCivil ConspiracyLitigation AbuseAttorney MisconductAppellate Procedure
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacMillen v. New York State Racing & Wagering Board

The Appellate Division reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had annulled a declaratory ruling by the New York State Racing and Wagering Board. The Board's ruling required owners of thoroughbred racehorses to provide workers’ compensation insurance for their jockeys. The petitioner, representing the Horsemens’ Benevolent and Protective Association, challenged this, arguing jockeys could be independent contractors. The Appellate Division held that determining employee status falls under the Board's exclusive jurisdiction and that the Board acted within its authority and was neither arbitrary nor capricious in its ruling.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceJockeysThoroughbred Race HorsesDeclaratory RulingIndependent ContractorsEmployeesState Racing and Wagering BoardJudicial ReviewHazardous OccupationExclusive Jurisdiction
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Racing Ass'n v. State of New York Racing & Wagering Board

The New York Racing Association (NYRA) filed a CPLR article 78 application seeking to exempt competitive bidding policy documents from disclosure under the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), citing Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d) regarding trade secrets and potential substantial competitive injury. NYRA challenged a determination by the State of New York Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB) that had partially denied this exemption for certain approved policy changes. The court, applying the Encore test, found that even a summarized release of these documents would constitute a disclosure of proprietary trade information. Such disclosure, especially to the press, was deemed likely to cause significant competitive disadvantage to NYRA, impacting its franchise renewal and bankruptcy reorganization efforts. Consequently, the court granted NYRA's application, vacating the NYSRWB's prior determination and ruling that the documents are exempt from FOIL disclosure.

FOILFreedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawTrade SecretsCompetitive BiddingProprietary InformationCommercial EnterpriseSubstantial InjuryRacing IndustryRegulatory Board
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2009

New York Racing Ass'n v. Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The petitioner sought to vacate an arbitration award dated June 12, 2009, claiming it violated public policy. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the petition, confirmed the award, and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the order was affirmed. The court determined that neither Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 206 (4) and (5) absolutely prohibited the arbitrator's decision, nor did the award itself violate these laws, applying a two-prong public policy test. The court also noted that a previously agreed deferred prosecution agreement had expired and the respondent was not a party to it.

ArbitrationPublic PolicyCPLR Article 75Vacate Arbitration AwardRacing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding LawDeferred Prosecution AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewNassau CountySupreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 2009

Frenkel v. New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Plaintiff Zoltán Frenkel moved to amend his complaint to add a fifth cause of action, alleging that defendant OTB undermined a 2004 federal settlement agreement. OTB objected to the amendment, claiming futility and prejudice. The court, presided over by Magistrate Judge Andrew J. Peck, analyzed the motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. 15(a), applying the Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6) standard for futility. Despite the court possessing ancillary jurisdiction over the settlement agreement, it determined that the proposed claim, a state law breach of contract, failed to satisfy New York’s Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 618's notice requirements. Consequently, Frenkel's motion for leave to amend his complaint was denied as futile.

Motion to AmendFutility of AmendmentPrejudiceFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 15(a)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)Breach of ContractSettlement AgreementAncillary JurisdictionNotice of ClaimNew York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law § 618
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of McKenzie v. New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund

Claimant, an exercise rider at Belmont Racetrack, suffered pelvic injuries in December 2003 while working a horse. Despite an expired license, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established his case and determined he was a covered employee of the New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, holding the Fund responsible for medical treatment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this decision. The Appellate Division affirmed, referencing *Matter of Adames v New York Jockey Injury Compensation Fund, Inc.* (15 AD3d 696 [2005]), which established that an exercise rider is a covered employee of the Fund under relevant Workers’ Compensation Law and Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law provisions, irrespective of license expiration. The court found the Fund’s remaining contentions lacked merit.

Exercise RiderWorkers' CompensationJockey Injury Compensation FundExpired LicenseCovered EmployeeThoroughbred RacingPelvic InjuryAppellate DecisionBoard DecisionStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tennessee Downs, Inc. v. Gibbons

This case involves an appeal by William L. Gibbons, District Attorney General, against a decision by the Chancery Court of Shelby County. Plaintiff Tennessee Downs, Inc. sought a declaration under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 that pari-mutuel wagering on horse racing was legal in Tennessee and a permanent injunction against General Gibbons prosecuting them. The Chancery Court found it had jurisdiction under § 1983 and enjoined Gibbons from interfering with the plaintiff's liberty and property rights, stating that the need for a license was suspended. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that 42 U.S.C. § 1983 does not bestow jurisdiction on Tennessee courts of equity to enjoin threatened criminal proceedings, and such jurisdiction remains fixed by state law, which prohibits equity courts from enjoining criminal law enforcement. Consequently, the case was dismissed, and the injunction dissolved.

Pari-mutuel wageringhorse racinganti-gambling statutes42 U.S.C. § 1983injunctive reliefchancery court jurisdictioncriminal prosecutionfederalismstate court jurisdictionproperty rights
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 43 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