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 Robert Plan Corp.

Kenneth Kirschenbaum, the Chapter 7 Trustee for The Robert Plan Corporation and The Robert Plan of New York Corporation, sought court approval for fee awards for himself and his professionals for administering an ERISA plan. The U.S. Department of Labor (DOL) objected, asserting the court lacked jurisdiction to award fees from Plan assets and had specific objections to the reasonableness of the fees. The court affirmed its core jurisdiction over the Trustee's actions as Plan administrator and his professionals' compensation, regardless of whether payments came from Plan or estate assets, citing previous rulings. The court analyzed whether Bankruptcy Code §§ 326 and 330 conflicted with ERISA statutes concerning fiduciary compensation, concluding no substantive conflict existed and the Bankruptcy Code's specific compensation scheme governed. Ultimately, the court largely overruled DOL's objections and granted the fee applications for the Trustee, K & K, Witz, and Whitfield, deeming the requested amounts reasonable and compliant with the Bankruptcy Code. The awards are payable from the Plan's Pguy Account, with any shortfall covered by the Debtors' estate.

Bankruptcy LawERISAChapter 7 TrusteeFee ApplicationPlan AdministrationJurisdictionReasonable CompensationStatutory ConstructionDepartment of LaborFiduciary Duties
References
50
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

Laflamme v. Carpenters Local 370 Pension Plan

Plaintiff Michael LaFlamme initiated a class action against the Carpenters Local #370 Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) concerning the plan's 'freezing rule' for benefit accrual after a 'break in service.' LaFlamme sought a judicial declaration that this rule contravenes ERISA's minimum accrual standards, along with a reformation of the pension plan and recalculation of benefits for all affected class members. The court, presided over by District Judge Hurd, evaluated the motion for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b), finding that the requirements of numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation were met. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted, establishing a class comprised of all plan participants, active or retired, who experienced a service break resulting in frozen benefit accrual rates. The decision also outlined procedures for providing notice to the newly certified class members, while deferring detailed adjudication of defenses like statute of limitations and exhaustion of remedies to later dispositive motions.

ERISAPension BenefitsClass ActionBenefit AccrualFreezing RuleBreaks in ServiceClass CertificationRule 23(a)Rule 23(b)Federal Civil Procedure
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 24, 1992

PINE BARRENS v. Planning Bd.

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens region of Long Island. The Central Pine Barrens is a vital ecological area, serving as the sole natural source of drinking water for millions and harboring numerous endangered species, leading to various protective legislations. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's ruling, determining that a mandatory cumulative impact study under SEQRA is not applicable here because there is no overarching governmental 'plan' for development in the region, only general protective policies. The court emphasized that comprehensive planning for this area should be conducted by the Long Island Regional Planning Board as outlined in ECL article 55, rather than through individual SEQRA assessments. It also noted the significant delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, urging legislative intervention to address this pressing environmental concern.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative ImpactPine BarrensSuffolk CountyLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningState Environmental Quality Review ActPlanning Board
References
6
Case No. CA 10-02164
Regular Panel Decision
May 06, 2011

SIEGL, SALLY v. NEW PLAN EXCEL REALTY TRUST, INC.

Sally Siegl sustained injuries after falling in a parking lot owned by New Plan Excel Realty Trust, Inc. The fall was allegedly due to a depression in the parking lot caused by settlement of crushed stones used by AALCO Septic & Sewer, Inc., which had repaired a water main two months prior. New Plan brought a third-party action against AALCO for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Supreme Court granted AALCO's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the third-party complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the common-law indemnification claim, finding New Plan also negligent. The majority also affirmed the dismissal of the contribution claim, concluding AALCO did not owe an independent duty of care or launch a force of harm. A dissenting opinion argued that there was a question of fact regarding AALCO creating the dangerous condition, thus precluding summary judgment on the contribution claim.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCommon-Law IndemnificationContributionNegligenceAppellate ReviewWater Main RepairParking LotHazardous Condition
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 1999

Greenlawn CVS, Inc. v. Planning Board of the Town of Huntington

This case concerns an appeal regarding site-plan approval for a retail store in Greenlawn. Greenlawn CVS, Inc. sought to construct a 10,125 square-foot CVS pharmacy, but the Planning Board of the Town of Huntington approved only a 6,000 square-foot building, citing concerns about community character and compatibility. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, annulled the Planning Board's determination. This court affirmed that judgment, ruling that the Planning Board's findings were arbitrary and capricious and lacked substantial evidence. A dissenting opinion argued that the Planning Board had the authority to consider aesthetic impacts and community character under SEQRA, and its decision was supported by the record.

Site-plan approvalZoningLand useEnvironmental ImpactCommunity characterArbitrary and capriciousSubstantial evidenceAppellate reviewRetail developmentPlanning Board
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 17, 2004

Two Trees Farm, Inc. v. Planning Board of Town of Southampton

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by petitioners to challenge a determination made by the Planning Board of the Town of Southampton. The Planning Board had conditionally approved the petitioners' application for preliminary subdivision approval after amending their draft environmental impact statement (DEIS), citing concerns about the subdivision's consistency with a voluntary agricultural conservation program. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially granted the petition, annulled the Planning Board's determinations, remitted the matter, and directed the Board to approve the application. However, the appellate court found the Planning Board's decision to amend the DEIS arbitrary and capricious, affirming the annulment of the determinations and the need for further environmental review based on the original DEIS. Crucially, the appellate court modified the judgment by removing the directive for the Planning Board to approve the subdivision, emphasizing that the court should not substitute its judgment for that of the Planning Board on substantive State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) matters.

CPLR Article 78Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardSubdivision ApprovalDraft Environmental Impact StatementFinal Environmental Impact StatementArbitrary and CapriciousAbuse of DiscretionAnnulment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2013

National Integrated Group Pension Plan v. Dunhill Food Equipment Corp.

This case, filed under ERISA, involves the National Integrated Group Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees (Plaintiffs) seeking to collect withdrawal liability from Dunhill Food Equipment, Esquire Mechanical, Geoffrey Thaw, Sanford Associates, and Custom Stainless (Defendants). The core dispute revolved around whether the non-Dunhill defendants were part of a commonly controlled group at the time of Dunhill's withdrawal from the pension plan, and whether Geoffrey Thaw could be held personally liable through veil piercing. The court ruled that Dunhill, Esquire, and Thaw were jointly and severally liable for the withdrawal liability, attorney's fees, costs, interest, and liquidated damages, finding Thaw's complete domination and misuse of corporate funds justified piercing the corporate veil. However, the claims against Sanford and Custom Stainless were dismissed, as they were determined to have effectively dissolved prior to the withdrawal date, thus not being members of the controlled group.

ERISA LitigationMPPAA LiabilityPension WithdrawalCorporate Veil PiercingSummary Judgment MotionControlled Group LiabilityCorporate DissolutionPersonal LiabilityEmployee Benefits LawFiduciary Breach
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Tarrytown v. Planning Board

The Village of Tarrytown initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Planning Board of the Village of Sleepy Hollow's negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Planning Board had approved a subdivision for County House Road, LLC, to build 11 homes on an 11.9-acre parcel in Sleepy Hollow. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, granted Tarrytown's petition, annulling the negative declaration and enjoining further approvals until an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was prepared for all 60 acres owned by County House Road, LLC, including properties in Tarrytown. On appeal, the judgment was reversed, the petition denied, and the Planning Board's determination confirmed. The appellate court found that the Planning Board took the required 'hard look' at environmental concerns and that the Sleepy Hollow development was not improperly segmented from the Tarrytown properties, which were under a building moratorium and thus speculative.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationSubdivision ApprovalZoning MoratoriumCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewSegmented ReviewCumulative ImpactsLand Development
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 05049 [163 AD3d 577]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Peterson v. Planning Bd. of the City of Poughkeepsie

This case concerns an appeal by Jeanette Peterson, representing the Historic Southside Neighborhood Association, challenging a lower court's decision that upheld a negative declaration issued by the Planning Board of the City of Poughkeepsie. The negative declaration was related to Thomas LaPerch's application for site plan approval to construct multi-family housing near a historic district. The Association argued that the Planning Board's determination violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by failing to adequately assess environmental impacts. The Appellate Division reversed the judgment, finding the Planning Board's issuance of a negative declaration arbitrary and capricious due to its conclusory findings regarding historic impact and its unsubstantiated claims about vegetation removal. The court remitted the matter to the Planning Board, ordering the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAPlanning BoardNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousSite Plan ApprovalDutchess County
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 2,183 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