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

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00289
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 18, 2022

Matter of Personal-Touch Home Care of N.Y., Inc. v. City of N.Y. Human Resources Admin.

The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, which denied a petition to overturn a decision by the Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings Contract Dispute Resolution Board (CDRB). The CDRB had found that Personal-Touch Home Care's claim to use unspent Medicaid funds for fiscal year 2007 to offset workers' compensation assessment expenses from 2009-2010 was foreclosed. The court agreed that the State Department of Health (DOH) rationally interpreted its regulations, concluding that these retroactive assessments, levied due to financial mismanagement of a self-insurance trust, were not

Workers' CompensationMedicaid FundsSelf-Insurance TrustFiscal YearRetroactive AssessmentAdministrative LawAgency DeferenceContract DisputeHealth Care AgenciesFinancial Mismanagement
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartoo v. Buell

This case addresses whether the homeowner exemption of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) applies to structures used for both residential and commercial purposes. The court applies a "site and purpose" test to determine applicability. In Bartoo v Buell, the repair of a barn roof, used for both personal storage and commercial golf cart storage, was deemed primarily residential, thus granting the owner exemption. In Anderson v Flanagan, the addition of a bedroom to a home also operating a daycare center was found to be directly related to residential use, exempting the owner from liability. The Court concluded that owners of one- or two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work are shielded by the homeowner exemption when the work directly relates to the residential use of the home, even if it also serves a commercial purpose.

Homeowner ExemptionLabor LawDual-Use PropertyResidential UseCommercial UseStrict LiabilitySite and Purpose TestScaffold CollapseRoof RepairBedroom Addition
References
7
Case No. 03-19-00063-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2020

Mary Catherine Person v. Martha Pyron

This case concerns a property dispute between next-door neighbors, Mary Catherine Person and Martha Pyron, over a strip of land and the placement of a fence. Person claimed adverse possession of the land and sought an injunction to remove Pyron's fence. Pyron counterclaimed for trespass, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief regarding the property boundary. The dispute originated from the successive erection of three fences, with previous owners of Pyron's lot allowing Person's use of the disputed strip. The district court granted Pyron's motion for summary judgment, denied Person's, and established the property line based on a 2018 survey, ordering Person to remove encroachments. The Third District Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that Person failed to prove continuous hostile adverse possession for the statutory ten-year period, as her initial use was permissive and did not become adverse until 2016 or 2017.

Adverse PossessionProperty DisputeBoundary LineSummary JudgmentTrespassInjunctive ReliefReal PropertyFence DisputeTexas LawAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Harlan

The Debtors, who filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy, claimed an exemption for the proceeds from the voluntary sale of their homestead under Article 3834, Texas Revised Civil Statutes Annotated. Kettering Construction Company, a creditor, objected, arguing that the exemption's intent was for reinvestment in a new homestead within six months, and the court should verify this use. The Court, referencing White v. Stump, determined that exemption rights are fixed at the time of the bankruptcy petition's filing. Since the Debtors filed within the six-month period, the proceeds were exempt at that time, and subsequent use is irrelevant. The Court found no fraud in the timing of the petition to protect the exemption. Therefore, Kettering Construction Company's objection was overruled.

BankruptcyHomestead ExemptionChapter 7State Exemption LawsProceeds of SaleDate of FilingCreditor ObjectionFraud AllegationTexas LawStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dineen v. Rechichi

This case examines whether homeowners Daniel and Christine Rechichi are exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240(1) and § 241(6) for injuries sustained by a carpenter, the plaintiff, while repairing a barn on their property. The accident occurred on June 17, 2003, before their single-family home was built, though they intended to construct one. The plaintiff sued for Labor Law violations and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment, applying the homeowner exemption because the barn was intended for residential storage as part of their future personal residence. The appellate court affirmed this decision, applying a flexible "site and purpose" test. They concluded that the homeowner exemption extends to property intended for a single-family residence, even when the dwelling has not yet been constructed, as long as an ancillary structure like a barn serves a residential purpose consistent with the homeowners' documented intent. The court found that the defendants' intent to build a home and use the barn for personal storage, combined with their actions to effectuate these plans, qualified them for the exemption.

homeowner exemptionLabor Lawliabilityresidential propertybarn constructionstatutory interpretationsite and purpose testappellate decisionsummary judgmentpersonal residence
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. 03-99-00064-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 1999

Coalition of Texans With Disabilities v. Tommy v. Smith, Former Commissioner of Licensing and Regulation for Department of Licensing and Regulation, in His Official Capacity Rachelle A. Martin, Executive Director of TDLR And Members of the Texas Commission of Licensing and Regulation

The Coalition of Texans with Disabilities challenged the Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation's (TDLR) interpretation of Section 2(g) of the Architectural Barriers Act. The dispute centered on whether the Act's exemption for religious facilities applied to entire buildings or only to specific areas used for religious rituals. The district court sided with the TDLR, broadly exempting entire religious buildings. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that the Department's interpretation was unreasonable and inconsistent with the Act's purpose of eliminating barriers for disabled persons. The appellate court clarified that the exemption only applies to places within a religious building used primarily for rituals, not the entire structure, and remanded the case for further proceedings.

AccessibilityDisability RightsReligious ExemptionsArchitectural Barriers ActStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewTexas LawSummary Judgment
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2006

Umanzor v. Charles Hofer Painting & Wallpapering, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated January 19, 2006. The order granted summary judgment to defendants Charles Hofer and Wendy Lopez, dismissing the personal injury complaint against them, and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1). The appellate court affirmed the order, concluding that the defendants, as owners of a one- or two-family dwelling, were exempt from liability under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The court found that the defendants had successfully demonstrated their entitlement to this exemption, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The incidental commercial use of a portion of the defendants' residence did not negate its primary residential use, thus preserving their exemption.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentLabor LawHomeowner ExemptionAppellate DecisionNew York LawConstruction SafetyDuty of CareLiabilityDamages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farias v. Simon

This dissenting memorandum concerns the applicability of the homeowners' exemption under Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) in a personal injury case involving a workman. Defendants, Simon and Parry, owned a single-family home undergoing renovation where the plaintiff was injured. The dissent argues that the motion court erred in granting summary judgment to the defendants, contending that there is a triable issue of fact regarding whether the defendants intended to use the property for commercial purposes at the time of the accident. Evidence presented, such as the defendants never residing at the property, extensive renovations, and discussions about renting, casts doubt on their claim that commercial intent materialized only after the incident. The dissent advocates for reversing the summary judgment and allowing the issue of subjective intent to be resolved at trial.

Homeowners' exemptionLabor Law liabilityCommercial intentSummary judgmentCredibility determinationRenovation projectPlaintiff injuryEvidentiary disputeProperty useAppellate dissent
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 7,107 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