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

Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

This case involves consolidated appeals challenging the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation's (RIOC) approval of the Related/Hudson site plan for Southtown development. Petitioners, Alternative Southtown Design Committee and Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development, argued RIOC failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the plan violated the General Development Plan (GDP). The Supreme Court's judgment, which had dismissed RIRSD's petition as untimely, was modified on appeal, finding the petition timely but denying it on the merits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Alternative's petition and the denial of RIRA's intervention, concluding that RIOC took the requisite "hard look" at environmental impacts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court found petitioners lacked standing to challenge the GDP's breach as they were merely incidental beneficiaries.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactGeneral Development PlanRoosevelt IslandLand UseUrban DevelopmentSite PlanJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGurran v. DiCanio Planned Development Corp.

DiCanio Planned Development Corp. (DPD) appealed an order dismissing its third-party complaint against DiCanio Residential Communities Corp. (DRC) in a personal injury action. Both DPD and DRC were additional named insureds under a multi-peril general liability policy issued by General Accident Insurance Company. An employee of DRC was injured at a DPD construction site, and General Accident paid the settlement for DPD. The central issue was whether the common-law antisubrogation rule precluded General Accident from seeking indemnification from DRC. The court determined that the antisubrogation rule did not apply because the General Accident policy contained an employee exclusion, meaning DRC was not covered by General Accident for the specific claims related to its employee's injury. DRC was separately covered by the State Insurance Fund for workers' compensation. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied DRC's motion to dismiss, and reinstated the third-party complaint.

Antisubrogation RuleIndemnificationInsurance Policy ExclusionThird-Party ComplaintPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation CoverageCommon Law PrinciplesCoverage DisputeSubrogation Rights
References
7
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board of Brookhaven

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 of Long Island, a region critical for the area's drinking water aquifer and unique ecology. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that SEQRA's requirements for mandatory cumulative impact statements do not apply to this situation. The court distinguished between a general governmental policy of protecting a region and a specific governmental plan for development, asserting that only the latter triggers mandatory cumulative review. It emphasized that a centralized planning approach by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, as outlined in ECL article 55, is the appropriate mechanism for managing development in such a vast and sensitive area, rather than piecemeal decisions through individual SEQRA reviews. While acknowledging the environmental urgency and the delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, the court concluded that the solution must come from legislative action, not by extending SEQRA's existing provisions.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative Impact StatementPine BarrensLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningSuffolk CountyState Environmental Quality Review ActECL Article 55
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06273 [153 AD3d 823]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2017

Matter of Green Earth Farms Rockland, LLC v. Town of Haverstraw Planning Bd.

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court judgment concerning a development project in the Towns of Haverstraw and Ramapo. The petitioners challenged the Town of Haverstraw Planning Board's determination that a second Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS) was not required for a proposed commercial development, specifically a large convenience store with 16 gas pumps. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, which found that the Planning Board failed to adequately assess the environmental impact of the proposed gas station, thus annulling the SEQRA determination and site plan approval and remitting the matter for further proceedings. The appeal by the Town of Haverstraw Building Department was dismissed as not aggrieved, and the petition by John McDowell was dismissed due to lack of standing.

Environmental ReviewSEQRASite Plan ApprovalZoning AmendmentGas Station DevelopmentStandingJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionPlanning Board DiscretionEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
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. 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

New Scotland Avenue Neighborhood Ass'n v. Planning Board

The case involves an appeal by the New Scotland Avenue Neighborhood Association (petitioners) challenging the Albany Planning Board's approval of a 124-unit town house project by intervenor Jason Minick. Petitioners initially challenged the approval, but the first proceeding was dismissed due to a voting irregularity. Upon recommencement, petitioners raised environmental concerns and requested an environmental impact statement (EIS), which the Planning Board deemed unnecessary. Petitioners then challenged the validity of both the residential cluster development ordinance and the subdivision approval in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking declaratory and injunctive relief. Supreme Court dismissed their petition, and petitioners appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, ruling that petitioners had lost their entitlement to injunctive relief, their SEQRA challenge to the ordinance was time-barred, and the Planning Board had properly complied with environmental and zoning requirements in approving the subdivision.

Zoning OrdinanceCluster DevelopmentEnvironmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Subdivision Plat ApprovalPlanning Board DiscretionStatute of LimitationsInjunctive ReliefCPLR Article 78General Municipal LawGeneral City Law
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 3,157 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