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

Vulcan Affordable Housing Corp. v. Hartnett

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether a low-income housing project in the City of Albany, partially funded by a grant from the Affordable Housing Corporation (AHC), qualifies as a "public works" project under Labor Law § 220, which would necessitate the payment of prevailing wages. The petitioner, a private contractor engaged in building the housing units, refused an administrative subpoena for payroll information, asserting Labor Law § 220 was inapplicable. The project involved construction of low- and moderate-income housing, with title held by Capital City Housing Development Fund Company (CCH), and no public ownership, access, or use of the structures. Supreme Court concluded, and the appellate court affirmed, that the project did not meet the criteria for a "public works" project despite serving a public function of neighborhood rehabilitation, distinguishing it from fully subsidized public housing. Consequently, the subpoena duces tecum seeking payroll information was quashed.

Prevailing WagePublic Works ProjectLabor Law § 220Private Housing Finance LawAffordable HousingCPLR Article 78Subpoena Duces TecumPrivate ContractorGrant FundingConstruction Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor Hous. Auth. v. Shorts

The Taylor Housing Authority (THA) appealed a temporary injunction and a denial of its plea to the jurisdiction concerning counterclaims from Taylor Sunset Housing Development (TSHD) and Mallard Run Housing Development (MRHD). THA initially sued TSHD, MRHD, and Steve A. Shorts over ownership and operational control of public housing projects, alleging fraudulent schemes. MRHD counterclaimed for breach of contract and tortious interference, seeking damages and specific performance for property title. The appellate court affirmed the temporary injunction which prevented THA from interfering with TSHD and MRHD's operations, upholding the status quo. However, the court partially reversed the jurisdictional order, ruling that governmental immunity barred MRHD's claims for specific performance to convey title, while allowing counterclaims for monetary relief to proceed as potential offsets against THA's original monetary claims.

Governmental ImmunityTemporary InjunctionPlea to JurisdictionHousing AuthorityNonprofit CorporationCorporate GovernanceBreach of ContractPromissory EstoppelTortious InterferenceSpecific Performance
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Housing Agency v. Orton

William T. Orton sued federal housing agencies for personal injuries sustained from a fall at a dormitory in Orange, Texas, where he was employed as a guard. He alleged negligence by the defendants in failing to maintain safe, well-lit steps. The trial court found the Federal Public Housing Authority (FPHA) negligent and awarded Orton $9,500. On appeal, the defendants argued FPHA was not a suable corporate entity and that the United States Housing Authority (USHA) was a separate, non-liable entity. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's decision, ruling that FPHA and USHA were legally the same corporate agency, subject to tort suits, and that the operation of the dormitory was a corporate function. The court also rejected other appellant arguments regarding jurisdiction, compensation acts, court costs, and the damages award.

Personal InjuryGovernment LiabilityFederal AgenciesNegligencePremises LiabilitySovereign ImmunityCorporate EntityStatutory InterpretationExecutive OrderWartime Construction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicalo v. New York City Housing & Development Administration

Plaintiffs, sponsors of the Harbour Village limited-profit cooperative housing project in Brooklyn, sought a declaratory judgment and mandatory injunction to compel New York City defendants to take actions, including issuing a condemnation certificate, to facilitate the project. The project, approved by the Board of Estimate in 1971, stalled due to the Mayor's failure to issue the certificate, which was deemed a discretionary act. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, ruling that the Mayor's action was discretionary, not ministerial, and therefore could not be compelled by the court. The defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, as no enforceable contract existed given the Mayor's unexercised discretion and the court's lack of power to compel legislative or executive action.

Declaratory JudgmentMandatory InjunctionSpecific PerformanceSummary JudgmentDiscretionary ActMinisterial ActCondemnation ProceedingsPrivate Housing Finance LawNew York City CharterAdministrative Code
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF PETERS v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Petitioner Peters initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the New York City Housing Authority's resolution, enacted pursuant to the Gwinn Amendment, which mandated public housing tenants certify non-membership in organizations deemed subversive by the Attorney General. Peters contended the resolution violated federal constitutional rights and was arbitrary, seeking its annulment and an injunction against enforcement. After a lower court annulled the resolution and the Appellate Division reversed, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and remitted the case to Special Term. The Court avoided ruling on constitutional questions, asserting they should not be decided prematurely, and identified two non-constitutional grounds for potential disposition. These grounds included determining if the Gwinn Amendment applied to the specific housing project and if the Authority exceeded its statutory powers by expanding the scope of proscribed organizations beyond those explicitly designated as 'subversive' by the Attorney General.

Gwinn AmendmentSubversive OrganizationsHousing AuthorityTenant RightsConstitutional LawDue ProcessExecutive Order 9835Loyalty Review BoardStatutory InterpretationRemand
References
8
Case No. No. 36, No. 37
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2023

Bryan Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority, Estate of Tayshana Murphy v. New York City Housing Authority

This case involves two consolidated appeals concerning negligence claims against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for injuries and deaths resulting from intruder attacks in public housing complexes with broken exterior door locks. In both cases, the victims (Ms. Crushshon and Ms. Murphy) were targeted by assailants who gained access through negligently maintained doors. NYCHA sought summary judgment, arguing that the targeted nature of the attacks severed the causal link between its negligence and the harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment in Scurry and reversed the grant of summary judgment in Murphy, reiterating that proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury. The court emphasized that the risk of intruders harming residents through unsecured doors is precisely the risk that renders a landlord negligent, and that an assailant's intent does not automatically sever the causal chain.

NegligencePremises LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLandlord DutyForeseeabilityTargeted AttackSecurity MeasuresBroken Locks
References
11
Case No. 03-14-00661-CV
Regular Panel Decision

Devvy Kidd John Kidd M. J. Shadden John Cole R.M.Daiey Tracy Stephens Patricia Stroyick Dorothy Morrow Charles Morrow Amy Williams David Williams Norman Kuehn Elizabeth Theiss Rebecca Gutierrez Marie Nugent Steve G. Crutchfield v. Texas Public Utility Commission AEP Texas Central Company AEP Texas North Company CenterPoint Energy Houston Electric, LLC Texas-New Mexico Power Company And Oncor Electric Delivery Company, LLC

This brief concerns an appeal from the 419th Judicial District Court, Travis County, Texas, initiated by Devvy Kidd et al. against the Public Utility Commission of Texas and several utility companies. The appellants are challenging the Commission's denial of their request for a public hearing related to advanced metering technology, specifically in Project No. 40404, where they sought rulemaking proceedings regarding smart meters. The appellees argue that sovereign immunity has not been waived for such appeals and that the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) only requires public hearings when a rule is actually adopted, which did not occur in Project No. 40404. They contend that the Commission did seriously consider appellants' concerns and provided opportunities for participation in other related proceedings where rules were adopted, such as Project No. 41111, for which the appellants failed to appeal the adopted rule. The appellees seek to affirm the trial court’s order granting their plea to the jurisdiction and dismissing the cause.

Smart MetersRadiofrequency EmissionsSovereign ImmunityAdministrative Procedure ActPublic Utility CommissionAppellate LawJudicial ReviewRegulatory ComplianceTexas LawEnergy Policy
References
16
Case No. 01-04-00096-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2006

Heritage Housing Development, Inc., F/K/A Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. Heritage Geriatric Housing Development Viii, Inc. v. Velma Carr, as Heir at Law and Representative of the Estate of Raymond Carr

Velma Carr brought a survival action against Heritage Geriatric Housing Development VIII, Inc. d/b/a Heritage Sam Houston Gardens ("Houston Gardens") and its parent corporation, Heritage Housing Development, Inc. f/k/a Heritage Geriatric Housing Development, Inc. ("HHD"), for negligent nursing home care of her deceased husband, Raymond Carr. A jury found both corporate entities and employees negligent. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment against HHD, finding legally insufficient evidence to support vicarious liability against the parent corporation because it did not control the details of patient care. However, the court found legally sufficient evidence to support the negligence claim against Houston Gardens. Due to the potential impact of HHD's inclusion on the jury's apportionment of liability and damages, the case was remanded for a new trial on the negligence claim against Houston Gardens.

Nursing Home NegligenceVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceParent Company LiabilityCorporate ControlNegligent CareTexas Court of AppealsRemand for New TrialMedical Malpractice
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 26, 1990

Manhattan Valley Neighbors for Permanent Housing For Homeless v. Koch

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed the dismissal of a CPLR article 78 petition brought by petitioners challenging a Board of Estimate decision. Petitioners sought to annul the Board's approval of a plan to rehabilitate city-owned buildings in Manhattan for transitional housing for approximately 71 homeless families, proposing instead permanent housing. They contended the project required an environmental impact statement (EIS) due to the transitional nature of the residency. The court found that the city properly classified the project as a Type II action, exempt from EIS requirements under SEQRA and CEQR, as it involved replacement in kind and not new construction. The court concluded that the Board of Estimate did not act illegally or arbitrarily in exempting the project from an EIS.

Environmental LawAdministrative LawArticle 78 PetitionSEQRACEQRTransitional HousingHomelessnessUrban DevelopmentType II ActionJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1993

Hart v. Holtzman

This case involves a CPLR article 78 petition challenging a determination made by the Comptroller of the City of New York. The Comptroller had ruled that rehabilitation and construction work on the Greenpoint Hospital site, despite being publicly financed, was for privately-owned and constructed housing for low-income tenants, thus not constituting "public works" under New York State Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the Comptroller determined that workers on these projects were not entitled to prevailing wages. The Supreme Court affirmed the Comptroller's decision, finding it had a rational basis and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The appellate court further affirmed, emphasizing that the primary objective of the work, not incidental public benefit or significant governmental funding, determines if a project is a "public work" subject to prevailing wage requirements, especially when private developers retain ownership and construction risk.

Public WorksPrevailing WageLabor Law § 220Comptroller DeterminationCPLR Article 78 PetitionRational Basis ReviewPrivate ProjectsGovernmental FundingConstruction ContractsAppellate Division
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,311 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