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

National Union Fire Insurance Co. of Pittsburgh v. American Re-Insurance Co.

The case revolves around a dispute between National Union Fire Insurance Company and American Re-Insurance Company regarding a pollution exclusion clause in a reinsurance policy. National Union sought reimbursement from American Re after settling claims where employees were exposed to metalworking fluids. American Re denied coverage, arguing its pollution exclusion applied. The court, applying Ohio law, found American Re's pollution exclusion ambiguous due to its broad language and its intended purpose of covering environmental contamination. Consequently, American Re's motion for summary judgment was denied, and National Union's motion to strike American Re's defense was granted, requiring American Re to "follow the fortunes" of National Union.

ReinsurancePollution Exclusion ClauseContract InterpretationFollow the Fortunes DoctrineSummary JudgmentInsurance CoverageAmbiguity in ContractsOhio State LawDiversity JurisdictionIndustrial Contamination
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 19, 1945

Empire Case Goods Workers Union v. Empire Case Goods Co.

Empire Case Goods Workers Union, on behalf of its members, brought an action against Empire Case Goods Company and Sidney G. Bose to recover vacation pay stipulated in a contract. Empire sold its business to Bose, leading both defendants to deny liability for the vacation pay. The Special Term initially dismissed the complaint against both defendants, reasoning that Empire's employees became Bose's and Bose was not party to the contract. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal against Bose, finding no implied assumption of Empire's wage structure. However, it reversed the dismissal against Empire, holding Empire liable for the vacation pay as employees were not notified of the change in employer and continued to work under Empire's apparent authority, making Empire responsible under master and servant law.

Vacation PayEmployer LiabilitySuccessor LiabilityEmployment ContractSale of BusinessNotice of TerminationAgency RelationshipMaster and Servant LawAppellate ReviewWage Dispute
References
2
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Keenan

This decision addresses a Chapter 11 bankruptcy case concerning Dr. Keenan and his spouse, referred to as the Debtors-in-Possession. The Debtors were set to receive $100,000 from an insurance claim for pre-petition ear injuries sustained by Dr. Keenan. An unsecured creditor, Norwest Financial New York, Inc., sought a court order to limit the Debtors' use of these proceeds, fearing they would be used for personal expenses instead of for the medical practice or creditors. The court declined to micromanage the estate by imposing such limitations, emphasizing that it is better for the parties to negotiate a resolution. It also cautioned the Debtors that their financial conduct could lead to creditors seeking conversion or dismissal of the case.

Chapter 11BankruptcyDebtor-in-PossessionInsurance ProceedsPersonal Injury ClaimPost-petition IncomeCreditor RightsEstate AdministrationJudicial RestraintNegotiation
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Eddie M.

This case addresses whether a 12-day extension of the statutory 10-day limit for a juvenile dispositional hearing, mandated by Family Court Act § 350.1 (1), was justified by good cause or special circumstances. The 13-year-old appellant was arrested and, after a fact-finding hearing, his case was transferred from Westchester to Kings County. The adjournments were necessitated by the intercounty transfer, the need for a probation investigation, mental health study, and exploration of placement alternatives, which proved challenging. The court found that these circumstances constituted sufficient good cause and special circumstances, thereby affirming the order appealed from.

Speedy DispositionAdjournmentFamily Court Act § 350.1Intercounty TransferJuvenile JusticeGood CauseSpecial CircumstancesDispositional HearingProbation InvestigationPlacement Alternatives
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re McKenzie

The case concerns the confirmation of a Chapter 13 plan proposed by John A. McKenzie, the debtor. The plan included a controversial provision for special treatment, payment in full, for one unsecured claim from the Spencer Workers Federal Credit Union, due to the presence of a co-debtor. The standing trustee objected, arguing that this classification unfairly discriminated against other unsecured creditors, violating provisions of the Bankruptcy Code, specifically § 1322(a)(3) and § 1322(b)(1). The Court, referencing legislative history and established case law regarding claim classification in bankruptcy, determined that the co-debtor status did not fundamentally alter the nature of the claim against the estate to justify preferential treatment. Consequently, the Court denied confirmation of the plan, allowing the debtor to modify it.

BankruptcyChapter 13Claim ClassificationUnsecured ClaimsCodebtor LiabilityPlan ConfirmationFair DiscriminationBankruptcy CodeTrustee ObjectionDebtor Plan
References
10
Case No. 17-40152-CEC
Regular Panel Decision

Glassman v. Feldman (In re Feldman)

This case addresses the motion of Donald Glassman, a creditor, seeking to dismiss the Chapter 13 bankruptcy case of Robert Feldman, the debtor, with prejudice and to impose sanctions. Glassman alleged that Feldman filed his petition in bad faith to halt a state court malpractice action and failed to comply with multiple discovery orders. Presiding Judge Carla E. Craig found that Feldman, an attorney, exhibited reckless indifference in his financial disclosures and testimony, attempting to shift blame to his counsel for material misstatements regarding his income and assets. The court also noted the case essentially involved a two-party dispute. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was granted with prejudice for one year, and the motion for sanctions was partially granted, requiring Feldman to pay $15,953.20 in attorney's fees for discovery non-compliance, but not the full amount requested by Glassman.

Chapter 13Bankruptcy DismissalBad Faith FilingSanctionsDiscovery ViolationsDebtor MisconductFalse StatementsAttorney ResponsibilityTwo-Party DisputeLitigation Tactics
References
64
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Bonner

Richard and Ann Bonner filed for Chapter 7 bankruptcy. The trustee moved to dismiss their case because Richard failed to timely file all payment advices as required by 11 U.S.C. § 521(a)(1)(B)(iv). Ann Bonner was found not to be in violation as her income was from workers’ compensation and governmental assistance, not an employer, making the filing requirement inapplicable to her. The court denied dismissal for Ann Bonner but granted the trustee's motion to dismiss Richard Bonner's case, emphasizing that automatic dismissal under § 521(i) is compulsory and does not allow for reinstatement or waiver without extraordinary justification.

Chapter 7 BankruptcyAutomatic DismissalSection 521(i) Bankruptcy CodePayment AdvicesDebtor ObligationsCase ReinstatementStatutory InterpretationWestern District of New YorkBankruptcy TrusteeGood Cause
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of Baby Boy D.

This case concerns a private-placement adoption of Baby Boy D. where the birth mother sought to include provisions for annual post-adoption visitation and photo exchanges in the final order of adoption, based on a prior agreement with the adoptive parents. The court examined relevant statutes, including Social Services Law § 383-c and Domestic Relations Law §§ 71, 72, and 117 (1) (a), and case law concerning 'open adoptions'. It distinguished the present facts, involving an unconditional consent and an infant without a prior established relationship with the birth mother, from precedents that allowed open adoption terms. The court concluded that Domestic Relations Law § 117 (1) (a) mandates the termination of parental rights, and without an explicit reservation in the surrender instrument as per Social Services Law § 383-c, it lacks the authority to judicially enforce such post-adoption contact. Therefore, the court rejected the proposed modification to the final order of adoption.

Adoption lawOpen adoptionPost-adoption visitationParental rightsDomestic Relations LawSocial Services LawJudicial consentBest interests of the childUnconditional consentPrivate-placement adoption
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Joanne P.

This child protective proceeding addresses the corroboration standard for a child victim's out-of-court statements in a sexual abuse case. The 17-year-old child, Joanne P., alleged sexual abuse by her father, Gary P., when she was 13. Her mother, Voule P., was charged with neglect for failing to protect Joanne after being informed. The court found that Joanne's numerous attempts to flee her family home, ultimately becoming an out-of-State runaway to New York City, constituted sufficient corroboration for her out-of-court statements under Family Court Act § 1046 (a) (vi). Despite no medical evidence, validation testimony, or parental admissions, the court concluded that the petitioner established its case by a preponderance of credible evidence, finding Gary P. committed sexual abuse and Voule P. was negligent. Joanne P. was subsequently placed with the Commissioner of Social Services.

Child Protective ProceedingSexual AbuseChild NeglectCorroboration StandardOut-of-court StatementsRunaway ChildFamily Court Act Article 10Preponderance of EvidenceInterstate Compact on JuvenilesCredibility of Child Witness
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 17,976 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