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
Nov 10, 2008

SD Protection, Inc. v. Del Rio

Plaintiff SD Protection, Inc. brought a breach of contract action against defendant Edward Del Rio. Over two years, SD Protection repeatedly failed to comply with discovery orders, including monetary sanctions totaling $1,000 imposed by Magistrate Judge Robert M. Levy. Despite multiple opportunities and warnings, SD Protection refused to pay the fines or comply with the court's directives. District Judge Mauskopf ultimately held SD Protection in civil contempt for its obstructionist behavior and non-compliance. The court ordered the dismissal of SD Protection's claims and will award Del Rio reasonable attorney's fees and costs incurred due to the plaintiff's contempt, while declining to impose civil arrest due to jurisdictional limitations on serving such an order.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsBreach of ContractNon-complianceCourt OrdersMonetary FinesDismissal of ComplaintCompensatory RemedyJurisdictional LimitsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re B.H. Children

This case addresses the Family Court's authority to issue an order of protection on behalf of foster care agency employees in a child protective proceeding. MercyFirst, a foster care agency, sought an order of protection against a respondent father to safeguard its caseworkers, L.S. and S.H., from alleged threats and harassment. Presiding Judge Emily M. Olshansky ruled that the Family Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction to grant such an order, as New York statutes do not explicitly extend protection to foster care agency employees in this context. Consequently, the agency's motion for an order of protection was denied, and a subsequent motion for contempt related to a temporary order, which the court found void due to lack of jurisdiction, was also denied.

Family Court JurisdictionOrder of Protection AuthorityChild Protective ServicesFoster Care Worker SafetyStatutory Interpretation New YorkContempt of Court GroundsLimited Jurisdiction CourtsLegal StandingAgency Employees RightsJudicial Review of Statutes
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pierre v. Crown Fire Protection Corp.

This case involves appeals by Crown Fire Protection Corp. and PEM All Fire Extinguisher Corp. from a Supreme Court order denying their motions for summary judgment to dismiss a wrongful death complaint asserted against them. The New York City Transit Authority also cross-appealed the denial of its motion for summary judgment seeking to dismiss third-party complaints filed against it. The appellate court dismissed the appeals of Crown and PEM as withdrawn. Furthermore, the order was modified to grant the Transit Authority's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the third-party complaint of Crown Fire Protection Corp. The court determined that Crown's work, which involved delivery and installation of fire extinguisher devices, did not fall under the categories described in General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Finally, the decision clarified that a recent amendment to Workers' Compensation Law § 11, which limits third-party suits against employers, would not be applied retroactively to pending actions.

Wrongful Death DamagesSummary Judgment DenialThird-Party IndemnificationGeneral Obligations Law ViolationsWorkers' Compensation AmendmentsStatutory Non-RetroactivityContractual IndemnityConstruction vs. InstallationAppellate ModificationDismissal of Appeals
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Horsemen's Benevolent & Protective Ass'n

This action was brought pursuant to subdivision 1 of section 340 of the General Business Law (the Donnelly Act) seeking injunctive relief and a penalty against the Horsemen’s Benevolent and Protective Association and its individual officers. The defendants, comprised of horse owners and trainers, sought to prevent the unionization of back-stretch employees and lobbied for a legislative pension plan. When their bill failed, members withdrew horses, causing significant racing cancellations and financial losses in 1969. The State commenced this action, alleging an illegal combination in restraint of trade, and a preliminary injunction was granted and affirmed. After a nonjury trial, the complaint was dismissed, which this appellate court affirmed. The court found concerted activity to boycott racing but disagreed with the trial court's finding of a 'labor dispute' exception and that the acts did not create a monopoly, asserting the Donnelly Act's applicability. However, the appellate court ultimately affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, concluding that an injunction was unwarranted due to the passage of time and the State's delay, and denied damages based on laches.

AntitrustDonnelly ActLabor DisputeBoycottHorse RacingInjunctionPenaltyLachesConcerted ActivityTrade Restraint
References
11
Case No. ADJ1182220 (WCK 0044768) ADJ144318 (WCK 0044769)
Regular
Feb 27, 2009

RICHARD CRUZ vs. AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Richard Cruz. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found that the applicant sustained a specific industrial spinal injury on December 16, 1997, and a cumulative trauma spinal injury through January 28, 1998, while employed by American Protective Services. The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on the opinions of two medical evaluators, Dr. Brose and Dr. Lavorgna, who ultimately supported the finding of industrial injuries. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and incorporated the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ ReportCredibility FindingIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaSpine InjurySecurity GuardAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. 2013-1461 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2016

Performance Plus Med., P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

This case involves an appeal by Performance Plus Medical, P.C., acting as an assignee, against Nationwide Ins. The plaintiff sought to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. The Civil Court had previously granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, leading to the dismissal of the complaint. The Appellate Term affirmed this order, ruling that the defendant's timely verification request tolled the insurer's time to pay or deny the claim, thus rendering the plaintiff's action premature due to a failure to respond to the request. Additionally, the court found that the defendant had successfully demonstrated a prima facie case for denying claims related to the first cause of action based on the workers' compensation fee schedule, which the plaintiff failed to rebut.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentVerification requestInsurer's time to payPremature actionWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewCivil Court orderFirst-party benefitsAssigned claims
References
2
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00122 [146 AD3d 488]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2017

Nunez v. Park Plus, Inc.

Emilio Nunez was injured at a parking lot owned by DeSoto Parking, LLC, while employed by Little Man Parking, LLC, when a mechanical lift caused the amputation of his toe. DeSoto moved for summary judgment arguing the claim was barred by Workers' Compensation Law § 11, contending Nunez did not suffer a grave injury and was its special employee, and that there was a written indemnity agreement with Park Plus, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, agreeing Nunez did not suffer a grave injury, but found factual issues regarding DeSoto being an alter ego of Little Man Parking, LLC, and the existence of an indemnity agreement. It also concluded DeSoto failed to establish Nunez as a special employee.

Workers' CompensationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentAlter EgoIndemnification AgreementSpecial EmployeeToe AmputationPersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewParking Lot Accident
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. American Protective Services of New York, Inc.

Raleigh L. Hams sued American Protective Services of New York, Inc. alleging race, sex, and disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and defamation under Title VII and the ADA. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer, granted in part and denied in part APS's motion to dismiss. Harris's claims for race, disability, and sexual harassment were dismissed with prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies or state a claim. His retaliation and defamation claims were dismissed with leave to replead. APS's motion to dismiss the disparate treatment sex discrimination claim was denied. All of Harris's motions to amend, vacate an arbitrator's decision, and for a preliminary injunction were denied.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADARace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentDefamationMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01170 [191 AD3d 1203]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 2021

Matter of City of Troy (Troy Police Benevolent & Protective Assn., Inc.)

The City of Troy appealed a Supreme Court order that denied its application to permanently stay arbitration and granted the Troy Police Benevolent and Protective Association, Inc.'s cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose from the City's alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) by failing to fill a vacant captain position within 30 days from a civil service list. The City argued that the CBA provision conflicted with Civil Service Law § 61 (1) and public policy. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the CBA provision did not violate Civil Service Law § 61 or public policy, as the City voluntarily agreed to a time frame for promotion and retained discretion to choose from the top three candidates. The Court also determined that standing and compliance with grievance procedures were matters for the arbitrator.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCivil Service LawPublic PolicyPromotional PracticesMunicipal CorporationPolice DepartmentGrievanceStay ArbitrationCompel Arbitration
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2017

TransAtlantic Lines LLC v. American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection & Indemnity Ass'n

TransAtlantic Lines LLC sought to overturn an adverse insurance coverage decision by the Board of Directors of American Steamship Owners Mutual Protection and Indemnity Association, following a shipping accident. TransAtlantic argued for a de novo review, asserting the alternative dispute resolution (ADR) process was fundamentally unfair due to the Board's inherent financial bias and violated public policy. The district court, however, applied the contractually agreed-upon "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review. The court rejected TransAtlantic's claims of bias and public policy violations, finding that TransAtlantic had voluntarily consented to the ADR framework. Consequently, the court upheld the Board's decision to deny coverage for attorney's fees, U.S. Government cargo losses, and perishable cargo expenses, concluding that these denials were not arbitrary or capricious.

Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR)Insurance Coverage DisputeSummary JudgmentArbitrary and Capricious StandardContract LawMarine InsuranceJudicial Review of ArbitrationWaiver of RightsPublic Policy ExceptionAttorney Ethics
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,043 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