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. 2020 NY Slip Op 04212
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 2020

Matter of Troy Sand & Gravel Co., Inc. v. Town of Sand Lake

This case involves appeals by multiple petitioners challenging the Town of Sand Lake's enactment of Local Law No. 4 (2017), a new zoning ordinance. Petitioners, including mining companies and residents, sought to annul the law, arguing violations of SEQRA, inconsistency with the comprehensive plan, and preemption by MLRL. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitions, but the Appellate Division partially modified the judgment. The Appellate Division determined some petitioners had standing and annulled specific sections of Local Law No. 4 related to SEQRA powers and road use regulations. However, the court affirmed the remainder of the judgment, upholding the Town Board's SEQRA compliance, consistency with the comprehensive plan, and the constitutionality of most of Local Law No. 4, including setback and reclamation bond requirements.

Zoning OrdinanceState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Mined Land Reclamation Law (MLRL)Standing (Legal)Comprehensive PlanDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78Local Law AnnulmentZoning Map InconsistencyLegislative Delegation
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giant Group, Ltd. v. Sands

This case concerns a securities fraud action brought by Giant Group, Ltd. against accounting firms Arthur Anderson LLP, Friedman Alpren & Green LLP, and individual Glenn Sands, along with investment bank L.H. Friend. Giant alleged that the defendants made false and misleading representations and failed to disclose material information regarding fraudulent schemes by Sands at Periscope Sportswear, Inc., which Giant acquired for $85 million. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that Giant's federal securities fraud claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Rule 10b-5. The court found that Giant had received sufficient "storm warnings" and inquiry notice regarding Sands' misconduct, including prebilling and improper expense charges, more than a year before filing its complaint. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the federal securities claim as time-barred and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsInquiry NoticeMotion to DismissRule 10b-5Auditor IndependencePleading FraudPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActGAAP ViolationsPre-billing
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Fox Run Farms, Inc.

The State Insurance Fund sued Fox Run Farms, Inc. to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums, obtaining a summary judgment from the Supreme Court. Fox Run challenged the premium calculation, citing audit errors, incorrect payroll figures, and the misclassification of independent contractors as employees, and requested more time to examine audit documents. The Supreme Court denied this request, holding that worker classification required administrative review. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the summary judgment, ruling that Fox Run was unfairly denied sufficient time to review audit materials, thereby creating unresolved material issues of fact. The court clarified that while worker classification is an administrative matter, questions of coverage, such as independent contractor status, fall within judicial purview.

Workers' Compensation PremiumsSummary JudgmentInsurance AuditIndependent Contractor StatusEmployer-Employee RelationshipPayroll ClassificationDiscovery AdjournmentAppellate ReviewProcedural Due ProcessMaterial Issues of Fact
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maidman v. Incorporated Village of Sands Point

Petitioners Mitchel Maidman and Adam Hanft challenged two resolutions by the Board of Trustees of the Incorporated Village of Sands Point, dated May 9, 2000. These resolutions amended the master plan for the Village Club at Sands Point, allowing changes to access roads following a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) process. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied their petition, dismissing the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court concluding that the Board adequately addressed environmental concerns and did not improperly segment the SEQRA review. The court found that the Board properly identified relevant areas of environmental concern regarding traffic conditions and provided a reasoned elaboration for its determination.

CPLR Article 78SEQRAEnvironmental ReviewMaster Plan AmendmentVillage Club at Sands PointTraffic CirculationIngress and EgressSegmentationJudicial ReviewNassau County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Graziano v. 110 Sand Co.

The case involves an injured truck driver, originally employed by Horan Sand & Gravel, who was assigned to work at 110 Sand Company's site. After sustaining injuries on the job, he accepted workers' compensation benefits from Horan. Subsequently, he and his wife filed a personal injury lawsuit against 110 Sand. 110 Sand moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was its 'special employee' and thus, the acceptance of workers' compensation benefits from Horan barred the lawsuit against them. The Supreme Court granted this motion, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The appellate court agreed that the evidence supported the finding of a special employment relationship, and under Workers' Compensation Law, an injured worker who accepts benefits from their general employer is precluded from suing their special employer for the same injuries.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeGeneral EmployerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNew York LawEmployer LiabilityDerived Claim
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kruse v. Sands Brothers & Co., Ltd.

Peter Kruse petitioned the court to confirm a securities industry arbitration award of $300,960.08 against Sands Brothers & Co. and Peter Pak, who had failed to pay the award issued on June 18, 2002. Respondents filed a counter-petition to vacate the award. The court found that the respondents' challenge was improperly filed as a 'Counter-Petition to Vacate' rather than a formal motion, and also untimely, as it missed the three-month statutory deadline for seeking vacatur. Citing the narrow grounds for vacating arbitration awards under the Federal Arbitration Act and the strong federal policy favoring their enforcement, the court confirmed Kruse's award against Sands and Pak, jointly and severally. The court also granted post-award interest at a rate of 9% from July 18, 2002, until payment.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationFederal Arbitration Act (FAA)Vacatur MotionTimeliness of MotionSecurities ArbitrationPost-Award InterestJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsDistrict Court DecisionArbitrator AuthorityDue Process
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McCormack Sand Co. v. Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority

This case concerns plaintiffs McCormack Sand Co.'s claims against the Town of North Hempstead Solid Waste Management Authority and related entities regarding the sale of stockpiled sand and material. Plaintiffs alleged that the Authority's sale violated their Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, along with state law tort claims. District Judge Gleeson granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the federal claims, finding no constitutional violations. The court determined there was no impermissible seizure under the Fourth Amendment, the Fifth Amendment claim was not ripe, and neither substantive nor procedural due process rights were violated. Consequently, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the state law claims.

Constitutional LawSummary JudgmentFourth Amendment SeizureFifth Amendment TakingsDue ProcessProperty DisputeMunicipal LawCivil RightsSection 1983Federal Jurisdiction
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gjertsen v. Mawson & Mawson, Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning an action to recover damages for personal injuries sustained by a dockworker at a construction site. The plaintiff's employer, George W. Rogers, Inc., had paid workers' compensation. The appellants, Ingram & Greene, Inc. (a subcontractor) and H. Sand & Co., Inc. (the general contractor), sought indemnification from the employer, George W. Rogers, Inc., for the plaintiff's injuries. The initial order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, had dismissed their cross-claims and denied H. Sand & Co., Inc.'s motion to amend its answer. The appellate court reversed this order, finding that federal maritime law allows for indemnification based on either an express agreement or an implied warranty of workmanlike performance, and that Labor Law sections 240(1) and 241(6) impose liabilities equivalent to the doctrine of unseaworthiness.

Personal InjuryIndemnificationCross-claimsLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActFederal Maritime LawState Court JurisdictionImplied Warranty of Workmanlike PerformanceLabor Law ViolationsStrict LiabilityThird-Party Beneficiary
References
13
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 05376 [198 AD3d 1045]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2021

Matter of DeGennaro v. H. Sand & Co., Inc.

Claimant Sergio Degennaro sustained work-related injuries in 2004 when he was struck by a vehicle. He obtained a settlement of approximately $1.6 million from Travelers Insurance Company in a third-party claim. The Workers' Compensation Board reversed a Workers' Compensation Law Judge's finding, ruling that Degennaro was barred from receiving further workers' compensation benefits. This was due to his failure to obtain the carrier's consent to the third-party settlement as required by Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the claimant bears the burden of establishing proper consent and that merely satisfying the carrier's lien is insufficient to waive formal consent requirements.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party SettlementCarrier ConsentLien ReimbursementWorkers' Compensation BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofWaiverWorkers' Compensation Board
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1993

Nichols v. Deer Run Investors, L.P.

Joel E. Nichols, a carpenter, sustained injuries after falling from an icy plank over an excavated ditch at a construction site owned by Deer Run Investors, L.P. Nichols sued the owners alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 240(1), 241-a, and 241(6). Defendants filed a third-party action against MCK Building Associates, Inc., Nichols' employer, for indemnification. The Supreme Court granted Nichols partial summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim and denied defendants' cross-motions. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the incident involved an elevation-related risk under Labor Law § 240(1) and that factual issues precluded dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) and indemnification claims. The court also agreed that Labor Law § 241-a was inapplicable.

Construction AccidentLabor LawStatutory LiabilitySummary JudgmentIndemnificationWorkplace SafetyElevation RiskAppellate ReviewConstruction Site InjuryScaffolding Safety
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 141 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