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. No. 50; No. 51
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2019

John Kuzmich v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition, LLC, William T. West v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether apartments in buildings receiving tax benefits under Real Property Tax Law (RPTL) § 421-g are subject to the luxury deregulation provisions of the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The Court concluded that they are not, reversing the Appellate Division's decisions in two consolidated cases, John Kuzmich, et al. v. 50 Murray Street Acquisition LLC, and William T. West, et al. v. B.C.R.E. - 90 West Street, LLC, et al. The ruling hinged on the interpretation of RPTL 421-g (6), particularly its "notwithstanding" clause, which the Court found unambiguously subjects such units to full rent control, overriding conflicting RSL provisions for luxury deregulation during the benefit period. The Court rejected arguments from the defendants and the dissenting opinion that legislative intent and the lack of an explicit exemption in the RSL for 421-g buildings indicated the applicability of luxury decontrol. This decision ensures that apartments in buildings receiving 421-g benefits remain subject to rent stabilization protections.

Rent Stabilization LawLuxury DeregulationRPTL 421-g benefitsReal Property Tax LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentLower Manhattan Revitalization PlanRent Regulation Reform ActAppellate ReviewSummary Judgment
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2004

Claim of Scally v. Ravena Coeymans Selkirk Central School District

In this case, a claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding apportionment of her workers' compensation award. The claimant, who suffered a work-related left knee injury in 2002, had a pre-existing non-work-related injury to the same knee from 1986. While a WCLJ initially denied apportionment, the Board reversed, directing a 50/50 apportionment based on the premise that the prior injury would have resulted in a schedule loss of use award had it been work-related. The appellate court upheld the Board's determination, deferring to its interpretation that a non-work-related injury leading to a schedule loss of use constitutes a "disability in a compensation sense" for apportionment purposes. This decision was supported by medical expert testimony indicating a schedule loss of use from the prior surgery.

Workers' CompensationApportionmentKnee InjuryNon-work-related InjurySchedule Loss of UsePreexisting ConditionMedical Expert TestimonyBoard InterpretationJudicial ReviewAppellate Decision
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1958

West Virginia Pulp & Paper Co. v. A. D. Lewis

The case involves an interpleader action brought by West Virginia Pulp and Paper Company concerning union dues collected from its employees. Rival claims for these funds were made by District 50, United Mine Workers of America, and an "Organizing Committee" formed by disaffiliating members of Local 12915. The core dispute revolved around the legitimacy of the disaffiliation and the validity of District 50's claim to the local's assets and checked-off dues. The court ultimately ruled in favor of District 50 and the temporary administrator of Local 12915, upholding the existing collective bargaining agreement and union constitution. The cross-claim by the "Organizing Committee" was dismissed, and the plaintiff was discharged from liability.

InterpleaderUnion Dues DisputeLabor Union DisaffiliationCollective BargainingProperty Rights of UnionsTemporary AdministrationNational Labor Relations BoardContract FrustrationDue ProcessTrade Union Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marinen v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini sued the City of New York, Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Sergeant Daniel Sweeney for disability discrimination based on perceived alcoholism, violating the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). A jury found for the plaintiffs under the NYCHRL and awarded damages. Defendants filed Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 post-trial motions. The court partially granted the Rule 50(b) motion, vacating punitive damages against Commissioner Kelly, but denied all other Rule 50(b) claims and the entire Rule 59 motion. The decision upheld compensatory and punitive damages against Sergeant Sweeney, finding sufficient evidence of his malice or reckless indifference.

DiscriminationPerceived DisabilityAlcoholismNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActPost-Trial MotionsRule 50Rule 59Punitive Damages
References
98
Case No. NO. 14-13-00421-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2014

Sheila Adams v. Golden Rule Service, Inc.

Sheila Adams, a nursing aide, sued her employer, Golden Rule Service, Inc., for injuries allegedly sustained while assisting a patient at Golden Rule's health care facility. The trial court dismissed the case because Adams failed to serve an expert report as required by the Texas Medical Liability Act (TMLA). Adams appealed, arguing her claims were not governed by the TMLA. The Fourteenth Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that Adams's claims were health care liability claims subject to the TMLA's expert report requirement, consistent with prior court precedents.

Health care liabilityTMLAExpert reportNegligenceEmployer liabilityMedical injuryWorkplace injuryTexas lawAppellate reviewDismissal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Alliance Network, Inc. v. Continental Casualty Co.

In this Memorandum Decision and Order, the District Court addressed post-trial motions filed by the Defendants after a jury verdict favored the Plaintiffs on claims of unpaid fees, breach of confidentiality, and misappropriation of trade secrets. Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 50 or, alternatively, a new trial under Rule 59. The Court denied the Rule 50 motion, citing procedural bars and sufficient evidentiary basis for the jury's findings. Furthermore, the Rule 59 motion for a new trial was denied, as the Court found no errors in the weight of the evidence, curative instructions, discovery, or evidentiary rulings, and deemed the verdict not excessive. Consequently, the jury's verdict was affirmed.

Judgment as a matter of lawNew trial motionBreach of confidentialityMisappropriation of trade secretsUnpaid feesFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 50Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 59Evidentiary rulingsDiscovery violationsJury verdict
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1998

In Re Bagel Bros. Bakery & Deli, Inc.

This order addresses whether Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b) imposes an automatic stay on proceedings in a subsequently-filed bankruptcy case. The case involves three Chapter 11 cases of Bagel Bros. Maple, Inc. and Bagel Bros. Deli & Bakery, Inc. in the Western District of New York, which are related to earlier Chapter 11 cases of MBC in the District of New Jersey. MBC filed a motion in New Jersey seeking to transfer venue and requested that the New York court automatically stay its proceedings based on Rule 1014(b). Bankruptcy Judge Michael J. Kaplan ruled that Rule 1014(b) does not constitute an automatic or self-executing stay upon the mere filing of a motion. Instead, a judicial determination and order from the first-filed court (District of New Jersey) are required to impose such a stay, ensuring that substantive rights are not abridged and allowing for judicial discretion in emergency matters. Therefore, the proceedings in the Western District of New York are not automatically stayed.

Bankruptcy ProcedureAutomatic StayFederal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 1014(b)Venue TransferChapter 11 ReorganizationInter-district BankruptcyJudicial InterventionSubstantive RightsFranchise AgreementsCash Collateral Disputes
References
12
Case No. 727 F. Supp. 2d 95
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 2010

Menghi v. Hart

Plaintiff Jennifer Menghi sued defendants Teddy Hart and Suffolk County for civil rights violations and Drivers' Privacy Protection Act (DPPA) violations. A jury found in favor of Menghi on DPPA claims, awarding compensatory and punitive damages. Defendants moved for judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50(b)) or a new trial (Rule 59) and sought damages reduction. Plaintiff moved for attorneys' fees. The court denied Rule 50 motions, granted in part and denied in part Rule 59 motions (ordering a new trial on damages unless plaintiff accepts remittitur to $500,000 compensatory and $100,000 punitive damages), and partially granted plaintiff's motion for attorneys' fees and costs in the amounts of $230,878.80 and $1,081.80 respectively.

DPPA ViolationDrivers' Privacy Protection ActVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentHarassmentEmotional DistressGraves' DiseasePTSDCompensatory DamagesPunitive Damages
References
67
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kinneary v. City of New York

Plaintiff Joseph Kinneary sued the City of New York and several employees for disability discrimination under various federal and state laws, alleging "shy bladder syndrome." After a jury verdict in Kinneary's favor, awarding $100,000 in back pay and $125,000 in non-economic damages, both parties filed post-verdict motions. City Defendants sought judgment as a matter of law (Rule 50) or a new trial/remittitur (Rule 59). Kinneary moved for reinstatement, prejudgment interest, and attorneys' fees and costs. The Court denied City Defendants' Rule 50 motion and Kinneary's reinstatement motion. It granted City Defendants' Rule 59 motion for a new trial on non-economic damages unless Kinneary accepted a remittitur to $25,000. Kinneary's motions for prejudgment interest and attorneys' fees and costs were granted.

Disability DiscriminationShy Bladder SyndromeAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights LawBack Pay AwardEmotional DamagesRemittiturPrejudgment Interest
References
22
Case No. 08-22-00198-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 31, 2023

Peter I. Shah v. Maple Energy Holdings, LLC

Peter I. Shah, the surface-estate owner, appealed a summary judgment order in favor of Maple Energy Holdings, LLC, which affirmed Maple Energy's right to reasonably use the surface estate as a mineral lessee and enjoined Shah from interference. The trial court also awarded Maple Energy $95,154.50 in attorney's fees, consisting of a Rule 91a award and a Uniform Declaratory Judgment Act (UDJA) award. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment rulings and the UDJA-based attorney's fees but found the Rule 91a award improper. It suggested a remittitur, reducing the total monetary judgment to $85,416.50, and remanded the attorney's fees issue if remittitur is not accepted.

Mineral RightsSurface EstateSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefAttorney's FeesRemittiturOil and Gas OperationsCivil ProcedureAppellate Review
References
71
Showing 1-10 of 11,350 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