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

Wishny v. John Jones

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of hand-made cigars, had a contract with the defendant union which expired in 1937. After failed attempts to negotiate a new contract, the plaintiff's employees, all union members, quit work on October 4, 1938. Subsequently, the plaintiff announced his intention to liquidate his business and has ceased manufacturing cigars, yet the defendant union continues to picket. The court found that no labor dispute exists, emphasizing a business owner's right to liquidate without interference. Therefore, the motion for an injunction pendente lite was granted, prohibiting the defendant union from further interference.

Labor disputeInjunction pendente liteBusiness liquidationUnion picketingEmployer rightsEmployee strikeContract expirationCivil Practice ActRight to discontinue businessUnfair labor practice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1957

Halpern v. Martinelli

The plaintiffs, Halpern & Sons, a furniture refinishing business, sought an injunction *pendente lite* to prevent the defendant union from picketing their business, coercing them into recognizing the union, and interfering with their operations. Plaintiffs alleged that after they entered a collective bargaining agreement with another union, Local 710, following an election, the defendant union began picketing, intimidating customers and employees. The defendants denied these claims, asserting their picketing was peaceful and for organizational purposes, and accused the plaintiffs of orchestrating the certification of Local 710 to thwart their own organizing efforts. Due to conflicting affidavits regarding the purpose and nature of the picketing, the court found that the disputed issues could not be determined without a hearing. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for a temporary injunction was conditionally denied, contingent on the defendants serving their answer by April 4, 1957, and accepting a note of issue for a trial scheduled on April 11, 1957. Failure to comply with these conditions would result in the motion being granted.

InjunctionPendente LiteLabor DisputePicketingUnion RecognitionCollective BargainingTemporary InjunctionOrganizational PicketingConflicting AffidavitsConditional Denial
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Arnold v. Goldman

An order granting an injunction pendente lite was affirmed. The decision included ten dollars costs and disbursements, and no opinion was issued. Justices Lazansky, Young, Kapper, Carswell, and Davis concurred with the decision.

InjunctionPendente LiteAffirmed DecisionCosts and DisbursementsPanel ConcurrenceJudicial ReviewNo Opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Euclid Candy Co. of New York, Inc. v. Summa

This case concerns Euclid's motion for an injunction pendente lite against Local 452 to stop a strike and picketing, stemming from a union dispute. An NLRB election certified the Independent Union as the sole bargaining agent, leading to Euclid's closed-shop agreement with them. When Local 452 members refused to join, they initiated a strike and picketing. The court ruled that the NLRB certification concluded any "labor dispute" under the Civil Practice Act, thus Local 452's actions aimed to force a contract breach. Finding irreparable harm, the court granted the injunction.

injunctionlabor lawunion disputeclosed shopNLRB electionpicketingstrikebreach of contractirreparable injurymajority rule
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stuhmer & Co. v. Korman

This case addresses a motion by defendants to vacate a stay contained within an order to show cause for an injunction pendente lite. The defendants argued that Section 882 of the Civil Practice Act, as amended in 1930, was not complied with. The court clarifies that the amended statute requires notice for temporary injunctions, but the character and extent of such notice are at the court's discretion, and any notice deemed sufficient by the court is compliant. The court further clarifies that the notice was not jurisdictionally defective merely because the summons and complaint had not been served at the time of the notice, as jurisdiction is provisional upon subsequent service. Therefore, the motion to vacate the stay was denied.

Injunction Pendente LiteStay OrderCivil Practice ActStatutory InterpretationJurisdictionNotice RequirementMotion PracticeTemporary InjunctionsNew York Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 1990

Steel v. Steel

In this divorce action, the defendant mother sought pendente lite child support for their four children. Justice Phyllis Gangel-Jacob presided over the case, applying the newly effective Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) to determine the support amount. The court meticulously calculated the combined parental income, applied statutory deductions and percentages for income above and below $80,000, and apportioned child care and medical expenses. Recognizing the significant income disparity, the father was ordered to pay an annual sum of $53,212 for child support, along with 100% of the children's reasonable medical and dental expenses.

Child SupportPendente LiteDivorceCSSAIncome CalculationChild Care ExpensesMedical ExpensesStandard of LivingParental Income DisparityDomestic Relations Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pre' Catelan, Inc. v. International Federation of Workers

The plaintiff, a restaurant business operating an 'open shop' called Pre’ Catelan, sought an injunction against striking workers and their union. The strike, initiated without warning, involved picketing and alleged acts of violence, intimidation, and assault against employees and patrons, resulting in severe injuries to some workers. The defendants denied these charges, claiming peaceful picketing and attributing any disturbances to strangers, arguing the strike was due to the plaintiff's intention to destroy the union. The court, citing established principles regarding lawful picketing and the protection of workers' rights, found that the presented proof established aggravated assaults and threats. Consequently, the motion to continue the injunction pendente lite was granted.

StrikePicketingInjunctionLabor DisputeViolenceIntimidationAssaultThreatsOpen ShopClosed Shop
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 11, 1935

Frederick Loeser & Co. v. Kirkman

This case involves an appeal regarding an order granting a plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite. The court affirmed the order, with the condition that the plaintiff consents to proceed to trial at Special Term, Part III, Kings County. The trial is scheduled for Monday, February 11, 1935, and requires the consent of the presiding justice. The decision was made by a panel of judges including Lazansky, P. J., Young, Carswell, Seudder, and Johnston, who all concurred.

Injunction Pendente LiteMotion AffirmedTrial SchedulingAppellate ReviewProcedural OrderJudicial ConcurrenceSpecial TermKings County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smethurst v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 786

The court reversed an order that had granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The temporary injunction was vacated, and the complaint was dismissed. The decision granted the plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint within ten days. The court determined that the case arose from a 'labor dispute' under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act and that the initial complaint did not present sufficient facts for a cause of action.

InjunctionLabor DisputeCivil Practice ActComplaint DismissedReversalMotionPendente LiteVacated InjunctionAmended ComplaintProcedural Ruling
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Campos v. Campos

This case involves an appeal by a respondent father concerning child support arrears. An initial support order was issued by default, and the arrears amount was subsequently recalculated multiple times by a Hearing Examiner. The Family Court confirmed an order setting arrears at $23,310. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The court found that the Hearing Examiner failed to ascertain whether the respondent's income between 1990 and 1993 fell below or equaled the poverty income guidelines, as mandated by Family Court Act § 413 (1) (g). Given the respondent's documented unemployment, SSI benefits, and public assistance, the court concluded that child support arrears should not have exceeded $500 during that period. The matter was remitted for a new determination of arrears consistent with the poverty income guidelines.

Child Support ArrearsPoverty GuidelinesFamily Court ActSSI BenefitsPublic AssistanceUnemploymentPsychological ConditionRes JudicataAppellate ReviewReversal
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 246 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