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. 05-cv-0200
Regular Panel Decision

Virga v. Big Apple Construction & Restoration Inc.

The plaintiffs, multi-employer labor-management trust funds, sued defendants Big Apple Builders, Inc. and Kang Yeon Lee for delinquent fringe benefits, dues checkoffs, and PAC contributions, totaling over $800,000. The defendants defaulted by failing to respond to interrogatories and a notice to admit. Judge McMahon initially granted summary judgment in favor of the plaintiffs but denied imputed audit costs. Upon reconsideration, the judge reversed the decision on audit costs, finding them appropriate under the collective bargaining agreement's "other legal or equitable relief" clause, despite a prior ruling in Santa Fe Construction.

ERISATaft-Hartley ActCollective Bargaining AgreementDelinquent ContributionsSummary JudgmentReconsideration MotionAudit CostsPersonal LiabilityMulti-employer planFringe Benefits
References
22
Case No. 91-CV-324; 92-CV-569
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund v. Boening Bros.

The New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund sought to audit the payroll records of contributing employers Boening Brothers, Inc. and Charles Snyder Beverages, Inc. The employers refused, arguing they were not explicitly bound by audit provisions. The Court ruled that by contributing to the multiemployer plan under collective bargaining agreements, the employers implicitly assented to the Fund's governing documents, which include the right to audit. Citing precedents, the Court found the audit necessary to ensure proper contributions and plan integrity, upholding the Fund's right to audit all payroll records, including non-bargaining unit employees. However, the Court denied the Fund's request for attorney's fees, noting the lack of bad faith by the defendants and the unsettled nature of the legal issue at the time.

ERISAPension PlanMultiemployer PlanPayroll AuditCollective Bargaining AgreementTrust AgreementSummary JudgmentEmployer ContributionsPlan AdministrationFiduciary Duty
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1987

Spinowitz v. Herrity

Plaintiffs, members of Local 101 of the Transport Workers Union of America, sued three officers of Local 101 seeking to inspect financial records under 29 U.S.C. § 431(c). They alleged a steady decline in union assets and questioned specific expense increases in LM-2 reports for fiscal years 1983-84, 1984-85, and 1985-86, including meeting expenses, conventions, professional fees, and officer disbursements. The court found "just cause" for inquiry into these specific areas, granting a preliminary injunction to allow inspection and copying of relevant records. However, the court denied disclosure for contract negotiation expenses and all expenses for fiscal year 1986-87, stating plaintiffs failed to meet the minimal "just cause" standard for those items. The court emphasized that the right to inspect does not extend to "wholesale random audits" for campaign material.

Union Financial RecordsLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA)Just Cause StandardPreliminary InjunctionUnion ElectionsFinancial TransparencyBooks and Records InspectionLocal 101 Transport Workers UnionLM-2 ReportsDisclosure Act
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seelig v. Koehler

This is a dissenting opinion regarding the random drug testing of correction officers. Justice Milonas argues that the majority decision to allow such testing without reasonable suspicion oversteps the boundaries set by the Court of Appeals and the United States Supreme Court. The dissent emphasizes that New York State law requires more stringent conditions for random searches, particularly concerning privacy interests and government justification. Milonas distinguishes correction officers from other law enforcement personnel, highlighting their reduced exposure to drugs within a controlled environment, which lessens the justification for random testing. The opinion concludes that there is no legal precedent in New York for the proposed blanket random drug-screening program for all correction officers.

Drug TestingUrinalysisFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsPublic EmployeesCorrectional OfficersPolice PowersConstitutional ScrutinyReasonable SuspicionNew York Court of Appeals Precedent
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of Sheet Metal Workers' National Pension Fund v. Steel & Duct Fabrication, Inc.

Plaintiffs, trustees of several multiemployer benefit plans, initiated an action against Steel & Duct Fabrication, Inc. and James Mikhail under ERISA. They sought an audit of the defendants' financial records and payment of overdue fringe benefit contributions for the period of January 1, 2008, through April 30, 2014. Defendants contested the court's jurisdiction, arguing the dispute was subject to arbitration, and claimed the collective bargaining agreements limited the plaintiffs to a single audit for the specified period. The court determined it had jurisdiction, as the plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries not bound by arbitration clauses. The court also ruled that the relevant agreements did not restrict the number of audits the trustees could conduct. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a second directed audit.

ERISAPension FundsBenefit PlansMultiemployer PlansCollective Bargaining AgreementsTrust AgreementsAudit RightsDelinquent ContributionsFiduciary DutiesDiscovery
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 1995

P.A. Building Co. v. City of New York

The plaintiff filed a summary judgment motion and sought to sever a second cause of action, which was denied. Defendants, the City of New York and Kislak, cross-moved to dismiss the complaint and compel the plaintiff to submit to an audit, which was granted. The core of the dispute involved the City designating Kislak to audit lease expenses, which the plaintiff contested as an illegal contingency fee arrangement. The court ruled that the plaintiff lacked standing to challenge the contract between the City and Kislak, finding no direct harm or third-party beneficiary status. Furthermore, the plaintiff's refusal to submit to the audit impaired the City's ability to protest overcharges, thereby relieving the City of its obligation for additional rent escalation payments. The court affirmed the dismissal of the plaintiff's complaint, the order for an audit, and the dismissal of the tortious interference claim against Kislak.

Summary JudgmentContract DisputeAuditingAgency AgreementStanding (Law)Tortious InterferenceLease AgreementBreach of ContractContingency FeeDismissal of Complaint
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Krauskopf v. Perales

The City of New York initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge an audit conducted by the State Department of Social Services (SDSS). The audit alleged that the City had failed to comply with record-keeping requirements under 18 NYCRR 310.1 (g) for 'State-charge' recipients, leading to an asserted overpayment of $18,266,412. The court determined that the State's audit was defective on three grounds: misinterpreting Social Services Law § 117 (1) regarding nonresident status, misconstruing 18 NYCRR 310.1 (g) by disregarding applicant interviews for verification, and imposing an arbitrary standard of proof on the City. These errors were found to defeat the purpose of Social Services Law § 62 (3). Consequently, the petition was granted, the audit and the State's recoupment decision were declared void, and the City was entitled to reimbursement for the disputed amount.

State-charge statusPublic assistanceHome ReliefAid to Dependent ChildrenAudit challengeReimbursement disputeSocial Services Law interpretationAdministrative LawBurden of proofArbitrary and capricious determination
References
4
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04594 [207 AD3d 905]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2022

Matter of Blamah v. New York Off. of the State Comptroller

Petitioner Tenneh Blamah, a chief examiner, was terminated by the New York Office of the State Comptroller for misconduct during two audits. The charges included insubordination, violating internal fraud protocols, lying, and unethical conduct during an audit of the Croton-on-Hudson Volunteer Fire Department. Additional charges stemmed from failing to report a subordinate's conflict of interest and improperly certifying an audit of the Lakeland Central School District. Petitioner challenged the termination, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, found substantial evidence to support the misconduct findings. The court affirmed the termination, deeming the penalty not disproportionate given the gravity of the offenses.

MisconductInsubordinationConflict of InterestFraud ProtocolsEthical ViolationsPublic Employee DisciplineCivil Service LawArticle 78 ProceedingSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suburban Restoration Co. v. Office of the State Comptroller

The State Insurance Fund (SIF) obtained a default judgment against a contractor (petitioner) for unpaid workers' compensation premiums. When the judgment remained unpaid, the State Comptroller (respondent) exercised its common-law right to offset the debt by withholding payments due to the petitioner from other state agencies. The petitioner challenged this action, arguing that SIF is not a state agency for offset purposes and that the Comptroller should audit the original default judgment. The court affirmed the Comptroller's authority, ruling that SIF is indeed a state agency. Furthermore, the court determined that the Comptroller is not required to audit a judgment in the state's favor before applying an offset, thus dismissing the petitioner's request for an audit.

Offset AuthorityState Agency DeterminationDefault Judgment EnforcementWorkers' Compensation PremiumsComptroller's DiscretionAudit ObligationCollateral Attack DoctrineAppellate ReviewGovernment Debt CollectionState Insurance Fund Status
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Terrorist Attacks on September 11, 2002

This Discovery Order, arising from consolidated actions related to the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, addresses disputes between the Ashton and Burnett plaintiffs and defendant National Commercial Bank (NCB). Magistrate Judge Maas ruled on the scope of limited jurisdictional discovery concerning NCB's contacts with the United States, an alleged 1998 audit, and customer bank records. The court granted discovery for a six-year period preceding the lawsuits regarding NCB's U.S. presence and ordered NCB to investigate and produce any existing 1998 audit. However, requests for underlying audit documents and specific customer bank records tied to Al Qaeda were denied due to an insufficient prima facie showing of conspiracy.

Discovery DisputeJurisdictional DiscoveryPersonal JurisdictionForeign Sovereign Immunities ActFSIAMinimum ContactsConspiracy TheorySeptember 11 AttacksNational Commercial BankSaudi Arabian Banks
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 121 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