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. 2025 NY Slip Op 03716 [241 AD3d 101]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 18, 2025

Matter of Doran Constr. Corp. v. New York State Ins. Fund

Doran Construction Corp. initiated a CPLR article 52 proceeding against the New York State Insurance Fund (State Insurance Fund) as a garnishee to enforce a money judgment. The State Insurance Fund appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied its cross-motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, holding that Supreme Court possessed subject matter jurisdiction under CPLR 5207 and 5221 (a) (4) as the State Insurance Fund was acting as a garnishee holding funds for another, not as a judgment debtor. The Court also rejected the State Insurance Fund's arguments regarding public policy and the denial of discovery.

Subject Matter JurisdictionGarnishmentEnforcement of Money JudgmentsState AgenciesSovereign ImmunityCourt of ClaimsCPLR Article 52Appellate ReviewDiscoveryPublic Policy
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Vukel v. New York Water & Sewer Mains, Inc.

Claimant sustained injuries during employment and applied for workers' compensation benefits. Public Service Mutual Insurance Company (PSMIC), the subcontractor's carrier, claimed its policy was canceled for nonpayment. The Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found the cancellation ineffective due to lack of proper notice, holding PSMIC liable. A three-member Board panel reversed the WCLJ's decision, concluding PSMIC's policy was properly canceled and directed the State Insurance Fund (the Fund), the general contractor's carrier, to commence payment of benefits. The Fund appealed, raising due process and notice arguments. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding no prejudice to the Fund and upholding the Board's factual findings regarding the cancellation reason.

Workers' CompensationInsurance Policy CancellationNonpayment of PremiumsDue ProcessNotice RequirementCredibility of WitnessesWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReviewState Insurance FundGeneral Contractor Liability
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cicatello v. Brewery Workers Pension Fund

This case addresses an action brought by employees and retired employees of the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (Teamsters Fund) seeking to enjoin the merger of the Teamsters Fund with the Brewery Workers Pension Fund. Plaintiffs alleged multiple violations of the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), including insufficient employee notification of the proposed merger, potential reduction in benefits, and failure to meet minimum funding standards. Chief Judge Curtin of the federal court determined that ERISA provisions cited by plaintiffs were either inapplicable to multiemployer plans at the time or had established mechanisms to address the concerns. The court also found the claim regarding the merger not being in the best interests of Teamsters Fund participants to be barred by res judicata due to prior state court decisions. Consequently, the court denied the request for preliminary injunctive relief and dismissed the complaint for failure to state a claim.

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Pension FundsFund MergerPreliminary InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentRes JudicataMulti-employer PlansFiduciary DutyMinimum Funding StandardsTax Qualification
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local Union No. 182 v. New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund

Plaintiff Teamsters Local Union No. 182 (Local 182) filed an action against the New York State Teamsters Council Health & Hospital Fund and the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund (the Funds) under 29 U.S.C. § 185. Local 182 sought a declaration affirming the existence of valid collective bargaining agreements between April 1992 and March 1994, which mandated grievance and arbitration procedures, and an order compelling the Funds to arbitrate layoff-related grievances. The Union contended there was a long-standing oral agreement to adhere to applicable provisions of the National Master Freight Agreement (NMFA). The Funds moved for summary judgment, asserting a lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denying the existence of any agreement with requisite definiteness. The court denied the summary judgment motion, affirming subject matter jurisdiction and finding that Local 182 presented genuine issues of material fact concerning the existence of a collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSummary Judgment MotionLabor DisputeUnion RightsGrievance ProcedureArbitrationSeniority RightsLayoffsNational Master Freight AgreementPension Benefits
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cement & Concrete Workers District Council Welfare Fund v. Frascone

Plaintiffs, consisting of pension and benefits funds, their administrator, and a union president, initiated a suit to recover unpaid contributions owed under collective bargaining agreements. The original defendants included Sovereign Building Corp. and Anthony Frascone, who were in default or insolvent, and Contractors Casualty and Surety Company, which was also insolvent. The primary defendants in the present motion were Trataros Construction, Inc., the general contractor, and Seaboard Surety Company, its surety. Plaintiffs sought to recover contributions based on a surety bond issued in connection with a public improvement contract where Sovereign was a subcontractor to Trataros. The defendants argued ERISA preemption, lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and defenses based on the Union's breach of agreements and the plaintiffs' failure to provide timely notice. The court asserted supplemental jurisdiction and found that the claims against Trataros and Seaboard were not ERISA-preempted. Ultimately, the court granted summary judgment to Trataros and Seaboard for claims arising from the first collective bargaining agreement due to untimely notice, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs for claims under the second agreement, rejecting the defendants' breach of contract defense as it could not be asserted against the funds as third-party beneficiaries.

ERISASurety BondCollective Bargaining AgreementPension FundsBenefits ContributionsState Finance LawLien LawPreemptionSupplemental JurisdictionSummary Judgment
References
27
Case No. No. 77 Civ. 4712 (MP)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 1978

National Ben. Fund, Etc. v. Presby. H., Etc.

The National Benefit Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers and the National Pension Fund for Hospital and Health Care Workers (the Funds) sued Presbyterian Hospital in the City of New York, Inc. (Hospital) to recover allegedly owed contributions based on collective bargaining agreements. The Hospital moved to dismiss, asserting the action was barred by a prior arbitration award between the Union (District 1199, National Union of Hospital and Health Care Employees) and the Hospital, which concerned the same contributions and was dismissed due to the Union's unreasonable delay. The District Court, treating the motion as one for summary judgment, held that the arbitration award had res judicata effect. The court determined that the Funds were either in privity with the Union or acted as third-party beneficiaries subject to the same defenses as the promisee Union. Consequently, the court granted the Hospital's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Arbitration AwardRes Judicata DoctrineEmployee Benefit FundsCollective Bargaining DisputesSummary Judgment MotionHospital Labor RelationsUnion RepresentationERISA ClaimsPreclusionFederal District Court
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 1998

High View Fund, L.P. v. Hall

Plaintiffs, The High View Fund, L.P. and The High View Fund, filed an Amended Complaint asserting claims against E. William Hall and Karen W. Hall for violations of federal securities laws, fraudulent inducement, Delaware Blue Sky laws, breach of fiduciary duty, unjust enrichment, conversion, and breach of contract. The claims stem from the plaintiffs' $1 million investment in United Golf Properties, Inc. and the defendants' alleged misuse of the company's assets and misrepresentations in an Offering Memorandum. Defendants moved to dismiss the Amended Complaint. The court, presided over by District Judge Scheindlin, granted dismissal for the federal securities law claims and common law fraud claims, allowing leave to amend. Additionally, the conversion and breach of contract claims were dismissed with prejudice. However, the motion to dismiss was denied for the Delaware Blue Sky law claims, breach of fiduciary duty, and unjust enrichment claims.

Securities FraudMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConversionBreach of ContractDelaware Blue Sky LawInvestment Fraud
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2000

Royal Insurance Co. of America v. Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund

The claimant sought 50% reimbursement of defense costs from the State Insurance Fund (Fund) for litigation related to a bridge collapse, after the Fund ceased contributions. The Court of Claims granted summary judgment to the claimant, finding an implied contract. On appeal, the Fund argued State Finance Law § 112 (2) (a) precluded such a contract without Comptroller approval and that factual issues existed. The appellate court affirmed, holding the Fund acts as a private insurer in litigation and is estopped from denying the implied contract, also finding no material factual issues precluding summary judgment.

Reimbursement of Defense CostsImplied ContractState Insurance FundCo-insuranceSummary JudgmentEstoppelState Finance LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewGovernmental Immunity
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1994

National Electrical Benefit Fund v. Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Co.

Plaintiffs, the National Electrical Benefit Fund (NEBF) and Local 41 Funds, initiated this action under ERISA to recover delinquent contributions from Heary Brothers Lightning Protection Company, Inc., Kenneth P. Heary, and Edwin W. Heary. The defendants asserted counterclaims and a third-party complaint, alleging RICO violations and other claims against the International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers (IBEW), National Electrical Contractor’s Association (NECA), Local 41, and individual union officers, claiming the collective bargaining agreements were invalid due to an alleged extortion scheme. Magistrate Judge Carol E. Heckman issued a Report and Recommendation, which District Judge Arcara reviewed de novo and adopted. The Court granted NEBF's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, dismissing the defendants' counterclaims. Motions to dismiss third-party claims against IBEW and NECA were granted, while Local 41's and other individual third-party defendants' dismissal motions were granted in part and denied in part, primarily concerning RICO allegations. The case was referred back for damages determination.

ERISARICOLMRACollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentRacketeering ActivityExtortionHobbs ActFraud in the Inducement
References
18
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04070
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of Cisnero v. Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund

Claimant Jeffrey Cisnero, an independent livery driver, sustained injuries when he was shot during a dispatch. He filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits, which was initially disallowed by a WCLJ but later reversed by the Workers' Compensation Board, finding coverage through the Independent Livery Driver Benefit Fund (ILDBF). The carrier appealed, arguing misinterpretation of the relevant statutes, particularly Executive Law § 160-ddd (1). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, determining that Cisnero's injuries arose out of and in the course of providing covered services as an independent livery driver dispatched by an ILDBF member. The court found that the vehicle's attenuated affiliation with the New York Black Car Operators' Injury Compensation Fund, Inc. did not alter ILDBF's liability.

Workers' CompensationLivery DriverIndependent ContractorBenefit FundAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentStatutory InterpretationExecutive LawWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 5,622 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