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 Heart Share Human Services

This case involves a petition filed by Heart Share Human Services of New York to terminate the parental rights of Brunilda E., the respondent mother, and Chiedus E., the putative father, to their child, Charle E., alleging permanent neglect and abandonment. Initially, the presumptive father was also a respondent, but the petition against him was withdrawn. The respondent mother conceded permanent neglect. The primary issues before the court were whether Chiedus E. qualified as a "consent father" and if the allegations of permanent neglect or abandonment against him were established. The court found Chiedus E. to be a credible witness, establishing his status as a "consent father" due to his prompt efforts to assert paternity and parental responsibility once aware of the possibility, despite the respondent mother's initial misrepresentations and the petitioning agency's lack of diligent efforts. Consequently, the court found that the petitioning agency failed to prove permanent neglect or abandonment against Chiedus E., leading to the dismissal of the petition against him, while proceedings for a dispositional hearing continued for the respondent mother.

Termination of Parental RightsPermanent NeglectAbandonmentPutative Father's RightsConsent FatherDiligent EffortsBiological PaternityChild AdoptionFamily LawChild Welfare
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 30, 2013

Cambridge Owners Corp. v. New York City Department of Transportation

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment denying a petition that challenged the Department of Transportation's decision to install a City Bike Share station. The petitioner argued that the determination was arbitrary, capricious, and violated the City Environmental Quality Review Act. However, the motion court concluded that the respondent's decision was based on sufficient environmental review, adhered to siting guidelines, and possessed a rational basis, thus dismissing the proceeding. The judgment, entered on October 30, 2013, was unanimously affirmed.

City Bike ShareEnvironmental ReviewCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousDepartment of TransportationNew York CountyLand UseUrban PlanningPublic ProjectsJudicial Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1979

Salwen Paper Co. v. Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith, Inc.

The plaintiff, Salwen Paper Co., Profit Sharing Retirement Trust, sued defendant Merrill Lynch, Pierce, Fenner & Smith for breach of fiduciary duty and negligent performance. A prior federal action by the plaintiff was dismissed due to insufficient federal securities law claims, and the federal court explicitly declined to exercise pendent jurisdiction over the common-law claims. The defendant moved to dismiss the current state action based on res judicata, which Special Term granted. The appellate court reversed, holding that res judicata does not apply because the federal court's dismissal did not address the merits of the common-law claims. Therefore, the common-law claims can proceed in state court.

Res JudicataPendent JurisdictionFederal Securities LawCommon Law ClaimsBreach of Fiduciary DutyNegligencePrior DismissalAppellate ReviewJurisdictional DiscretionState Court Action
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re AMR Corp.

This case addresses two motions filed by the Movants (comprising various unions and financial institutions) against the Debtors (reorganized debtors of AMR Corp.) seeking to enforce specific terms of the Fourth Amended Joint Chapter 11 Plan. The core dispute revolves around whether the Movants are entitled to 'true-up payments' in the form of additional stock shares beyond what they already received. The Movants argued that their initial stock distributions were reduced by taxes from the Disputed Claims Reserve, resulting in fewer shares than those received by claimants whose claims were allowed on the Effective Date. They contend the Plan is share-based, aiming for equal share distribution per $1,000 of allowed claims. Conversely, the Debtors argued the Plan is value-based, asserting that the Movants had already received full value due to stock appreciation and that excess funds should benefit junior equity holders. The Court ultimately sided with the Movants, interpreting the Plan as share-based and concluding that the true-up provision in Section 7.4(b) aims to equalize the number of shares received, consistent with bankruptcy principles of equal treatment for claims within the same class. The Debtors' value-based interpretation and 'deemed tax' argument were rejected.

BankruptcyChapter 11 PlanTrue-Up PaymentsStock DistributionsDisputed ClaimsTaxationContract InterpretationEqual Treatment PrincipleAbsolute Priority RuleClaimant Recovery
References
53
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 03740 [139 AD3d 855]
Regular Panel Decision
May 11, 2016

Matter of Headley v. Headley

This case involves an appeal by Amalia Headley (mother) against Wayne Headley (father) concerning a Supreme Court order that mandated equal sharing of parenting coordinator fees. The parties, who divorced in 2008, shared joint legal custody of their child. Following disputes over visitation and the father's motion to modify custody, a parenting coordinator was appointed to mediate and oversee the parenting plan. The Supreme Court directed both parties to share the coordinator's costs equally to ensure shared responsibility. The mother subsequently moved to vacate this directive, citing financial hardship. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing that in the absence of clear indication that one party was more culpable than the other, fees should be shared equally. The court also found no evidence that the lower court failed to consider the parties' financial situations.

Family LawCustody DisputeVisitation RightsParenting CoordinatorAppellate ReviewFinancial ResponsibilityChild's Best InterestsMatrimonial LawDivorce ProceedingsCourt Fees
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Campbell v. Campbell

Plaintiff and ten coworkers formed an oral agreement to share lottery winnings from tickets purchased in rotation. After a coworker purchased a winning ticket worth $4.5 million, a trust was established to distribute the proceeds, and all parties, including the plaintiff, executed a trust agreement. Subsequently, during plaintiff's divorce proceedings, the defendant counterclaimed, asserting that the lottery proceeds constituted marital property subject to equitable distribution. The Supreme Court initially ruled that the co-worker was not legally obligated to share, deeming the plaintiff's share a gift and thus separate property. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the oral agreement to share lottery proceeds valid and enforceable, not a gift. It held that property acquired during marriage is presumptively marital property, and the plaintiff's share from the pooling arrangement constituted marital property. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings concerning the disposition of the marital property.

Lottery WinningsMarital PropertyEquitable DistributionDivorce LawOral ContractsStatute of FraudsAppellate ReviewRemandTrust AgreementsProperty Division
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ZANG & OTHERS SIMILARLY SITUATED v. Paychex, Inc.

The plaintiff, Steven R. Zang, a trustee of Luxon & Zang PC 401(k) Profit Sharing Plan & Trust, sued Paychex, Inc. under the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA). Zang alleged that Paychex violated ERISA by prioritizing its financial interests and engaging in prohibited transactions through "revenue-sharing" payments from mutual funds and a custodial bank account holding plan assets. Paychex sought to dismiss the complaint, citing statute of limitations and arguing it was not a fiduciary. The court found that claims related to bank revenue-sharing were time-barred due to disclosure, but claims concerning mutual fund revenue-sharing were not. However, the court ultimately granted Paychex's motion to dismiss, concluding that Paychex did not hold fiduciary status with respect to the Plan, which was essential for all of the plaintiff's ERISA claims.

ERISAFiduciary DutyBreach of Fiduciary DutyMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsRevenue Sharing401(k) PlanPlan AssetsDiscretionary AuthorityProhibited Transactions
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGarrity v. McGarrity

The defendant wife appealed a judgment in a divorce case concerning equitable distribution, maintenance, and attorney's fees. The appellate court modified the judgment, increasing the wife's share of the husband's profit-sharing plan to $323,450 and her attorney's fees to $11,000. The court affirmed the maintenance award of $30,000 per year, finding it adequate given both parties' financial circumstances and future income, including substantial profit-sharing distributions. The court also found merit in the wife's claim regarding the husband's dissipation of $88,900 from a Country Bank account. However, the husband's inheritances, though deposited into joint accounts, were not deemed transmuted into marital property due to his lack of donative intent after the parties' separation.

DivorceEquitable DistributionMarital AssetsMaintenanceAttorney's FeesProfit-Sharing PlanDissipation of AssetsInherited PropertySpousal SupportAppellate Decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

HS Equities, Inc. v. Fleet

This case involves a stock brokerage firm (plaintiff) that erroneously sent 600 shares of AHP preferred stock to Anne B. Fleet (defendant) in 1968, instead of common stock. Mrs. Fleet subsequently sold these preferred shares in 1970. The plaintiff initiated legal action in June 1976, alleging that Mrs. Fleet's sale of the stock was fraudulent and seeking recovery under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, as well as common law claims of conversion and money had and received. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion to dismiss, ruling that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the plaintiff was neither a purchaser nor a seller of the shares, a prerequisite for a claim under Section 10(b). Consequently, the pendent state claims were also dismissed.

Securities Exchange ActRule 10b-5Subject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionFraudStock TransactionShare TransferTimeliness of ClaimsMotion to DismissFederal Civil Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2017

Claim of Lala v. Siteworks Contracting Corp.

Claimant Nick Lala sustained work-related injuries in an October 2007 motor vehicle accident and settled a third-party action for $100,000, with a net recovery of $64,541.51. The employer's workers' compensation carrier agreed to the settlement, reserving its right to a credit under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (4) but also acknowledging its obligation to pay a proportionate share of litigation expenses under Burns v Varriale. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) ruled that the carrier's credit, as reduced by its share of litigation expenses, was exhausted on August 20, 2013, a decision subsequently upheld by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer and carrier appealed, contending that the Board miscalculated the credit and erroneously determined the exhaustion date. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding that the WCLJ's method of deducting the carrier's proportionate share of litigation expenses directly from the claimant's net recovery before calculating the credit was consistent with established case law and the statute's purpose.

Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (4)Third-party action settlementCarrier credit exhaustionLitigation expenses apportionmentBurns v Varriale ruleEquitable shareTemporary total disability benefitsMotor vehicle accident injuryAppellate DivisionWorkers' Compensation Board decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 310 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