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. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7 World Trade Co. v. Westinghouse Electric Corp.

The case involves an appeal where plaintiffs sought damages from Westinghouse Electric Corp. for negligent design and manufacture, strict liability, and breach of implied warranty after explosions in bus ducts supplied by Westinghouse caused injury to workers and damage to the ducts at 7 World Trade Center. The trial court found Westinghouse 70% liable for negligence and strict liability. However, the Appellate Division reversed the judgment, vacated the prior damage award, and dismissed the complaint. The court reasoned that under the economic loss rule established in Bocre Leasing Corp. v General Motors Corp., plaintiffs could not recover for purely economic losses in tort without allegations of bodily injury or damage to other property. The court clarified that personal injury claims by workers did not extend to the plaintiffs' economic losses and that the Bocre rule applies to immediate purchasers.

Product LiabilityEconomic Loss RuleNegligenceStrict LiabilityBreach of Implied WarrantyAppellate ReviewTort LawDamagesBus DuctsWorld Trade Center
References
11
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

7-Eleven, Inc. v. Khan

7-Eleven, Inc. filed a complaint against Tariq A. Khan, Senita Khan, Farouq Khan, and Imran M. Khan (the Khans), franchisee-owners and employees of five 7-Eleven stores on Long Island. 7-Eleven alleged that the Defendants diverted profits from 2009 to 2013 in violation of their franchise agreements. Both parties moved for injunctive relief, and United States Magistrate Judge Arlene R. Lindsay recommended granting 7-Eleven’s motion and denying the Khans’ motion. The District Court, presided over by Judge Spatt, reviewed objections to this report. The Court found substantial evidence of fraud, including unrecorded sales, misuse of POS keys, and significant inventory shortages. Consequently, the Court adopted the Magistrate Judge's recommendation, granting 7-Eleven's motion for a preliminary injunction and denying the Khans' cross-motion for injunctive relief.

Franchise Agreement DisputePreliminary InjunctionFraudulent TransactionsPOS System MisuseInventory ShortagesTrademark InfringementBreach of ContractDe Novo ReviewMagistrate Judge ReportIrreparable Harm
References
34
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04711
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Orellana v. 7 W. 34th St., LLC

Plaintiff Jose Orellana, a worker performing demolition, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from an eight-foot A-frame ladder while cutting an air duct. He initiated legal action against the building owner, 7 West 34th Street, LLC, and the general contractor, W5 Group, LLC, under Labor Law § 240 (1). Both parties sought summary judgment, which the Supreme Court denied, citing the presence of triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that neither Orellana nor the defendants had demonstrated prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law on the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The court also clarified that comparative negligence is not a valid defense against the strict liability imposed by Labor Law § 240 (1), reinforcing the finding of unresolved factual disputes.

Ladder AccidentDemolition InjuriesConstruction SafetyLabor Law ViolationSummary Judgment DenialAppellate ReviewStrict LiabilityComparative NegligenceTriable Issues of FactPersonal Injury
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Guido

This case addresses the appropriate commission for a Chapter 7 trustee under 11 U.S.C. section 326(a). The trustee sought the maximum statutory commission of $16,705.95, calculated from a $269,118.91 base derived from the debtor's personal injury settlement. The debtor objected, arguing against a 'double-charge' on funds already disbursed to personal injury counsel and the worker’s compensation carrier. The court ruled that the commission base should only include funds actually received by the trustee, not those subject to constructive liens or paid directly to other parties. Considering the trustee's limited time investment of approximately 15 hours, the court exercised its discretion to reduce the commission to $3,642, based solely on the $28,921.65 distributed to unsecured creditors. The decision emphasizes that the statutory maximum is not a minimum and that, in cases where the burden falls heavily on an injured individual, sound discretion favors maximizing distribution to the debtor.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Trustee Compensation11 U.S.C. Section 326(a)Personal Injury SettlementAsset AdministrationSecured CreditorsUnsecured CreditorsJudicial DiscretionCost Efficiency
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Cale

Claimant, a Canadian national, worked as a social worker at New York University Medical Center under a TN visa. After her inpatient position was eliminated, she applied for partial unemployment insurance benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was ineligible to receive them because she was not available for employment. The court affirmed this decision, noting that a non-United States citizen must have valid work authorization from the Immigration and Naturalization Service. Her TN visa restricted her to working for a specific employer, NYUMC, and she was not authorized to seek employment elsewhere, thereby rendering her unavailable for work and ineligible for benefits.

Unemployment InsuranceVisa RestrictionsWork AuthorizationImmigration StatusTN VisaEligibility for BenefitsAvailability for EmploymentAppellate DecisionNew York LawSocial Worker
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Barden (In Re Skalski)

This adversary proceeding, initiated by a Chapter 7 Trustee, involved the Debtor, Theresa H. Skalski, who transferred her home in Depew, New York, to her daughter, Christine A. Barden, and son-in-law in 1995. The Debtor took a $35,000 note for the property, which she later forgave. The Trustee sought to void this transfer under New York Debtor and Creditor Law § 273, arguing it was a fraudulent transfer made without fair consideration while the Debtor was insolvent. The Defendants contended that the loan forgiveness constituted consideration for a promise of future support, and they claimed offsets for support provided and property maintenance. The court, citing precedent like Kotowski, ruled that a promise of future support is not fair consideration and rejected the Defendants' claims for offsets related to property maintenance, as they owned the property and collected rent from the Debtor. Finding the Debtor insolvent at the time of the transfer and the absence of fair consideration, the court granted summary judgment to the Trustee for $35,000 plus costs.

Fraudulent TransferBankruptcyInsolvencyFair ConsiderationFuture Support PromiseSummary JudgmentDebtor-Creditor LawU.S. Bankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFamily Transfers
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 17, 1990

Claim of Rogers v. Evans Plumbing & Heating

The claimant appealed a decision from the Workers’ Compensation Board, filed on April 17, 1990, which ruled his application untimely. The claimant had applied on August 31, 1988, to review two Workers’ Compensation Law Judge decisions from August 5, 1985, and October 1, 1985, denying compensation benefits for a period between February 7, 1983, and September 23, 1985. The Board correctly determined that the claimant's application was untimely as it was filed more than 30 days after the original decisions, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 23 and 12 NYCRR 300.13 (a). The Board's decision to not entertain the untimely application was found to be neither arbitrary nor capricious. The higher court subsequently affirmed the Board's decision.

Untimely ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewBoard DecisionProcedural TimelinessJudicial ReviewAppealSection 23NYCRR 300.13Claimant Benefits
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2012

Keefe v. Aramatic Refreshment Services Inc.

The claimant had two established workers' compensation claims for back injuries from 2004 and 2009, with benefits equally apportioned. The dispute arose regarding the calculation of benefits for the 2009 claim, specifically whether to use the claimant's 2009 wages or the higher 2004 wages. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the 2009 wages should be used for the 2009 claim, aligning with Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5) and § 15 (7). The Appellate Division affirmed this aspect of the Board's decision. However, the Board's unexplained reduction of a temporary total disability award to a marked temporary partial disability was found to be an error, leading to a remittal of the matter to the Board for further proceedings to address this inconsistency.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuriesDisability BenefitsWage CalculationTemporary Partial DisabilityTemporary Total DisabilityStatutory InterpretationRemittalApportionmentJudicial Review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 7,246 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