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

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
Case No. 21 MC 101, 04 Civ. 7272(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2007

In Re September 11 Property Damage

This opinion addresses the legal sufficiency of third-party actions filed by Seven World Trade Company, L.P. and Silverstein Properties, Inc. (Silverstein), owners and developers of 7 World Trade Center, seeking indemnification and contribution. Silverstein, who was both a plaintiff and defendant in various lawsuits following the September 11, 2001, destruction of 7WTC, brought claims against OEM Design and Construction Defendants, Citigroup Design and Construction Defendants, and engineers Irwin Cantor and Syska. The court granted motions to dismiss from all third-party defendants. It found OEM defendants immune under the New York State Defense Emergency Act, Citigroup defendants protected by Silverstein's prior assumption of risk, and Irwin Cantor and Syska dismissed for failure to meet heightened pleading standards for licensed design professionals.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterProperty DamageBusiness LossThird-Party LitigationIndemnificationContributionMotions to DismissSDEA ImmunityAssumption of Risk
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drayton v. Hasl

This Article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Commissioner of the Nassau County Department of Public Works dated August 14, 1984, which dismissed the petitioner, Mr. Drayton, from employment as a laborer due to six specifications of misconduct. The court found insufficient evidence to sustain three specifications: refusing assigned duties on September 16, 1983, and being absent without authorization or abusing entitlements on sundry dates. The court determined that hearsay testimony alone was insufficient for the first specification and that attendance records did not support the latter two. However, the court upheld findings that the petitioner threatened his supervisor and was under the influence of alcohol on September 16, 1983, and was frequently late for work. Consequently, the original penalty of dismissal was vacated, and the matter was remitted to the Commissioner for the imposition of a new penalty appropriate to the sustained specifications.

MisconductDismissalCPLR Article 78Administrative HearingHearsay EvidenceSubstantial EvidenceVacated PenaltyRemitted for PenaltyPublic WorksNassau County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Williams v. Lloyd Gunther Elevator Service, Inc.

Claimant, who established a compensable workers' compensation claim in 2003, also pursued a third-party personal injury action, which settled for $35,000 on September 16, 2010, with claimant receiving the funds on October 5, 2010. The employer's workers' compensation carrier then suspended payments, arguing its credit against the third-party recovery should begin on the settlement consent date (September 16, 2010), while the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and Board ruled it began on the date claimant received the settlement (October 5, 2010). The Board based its decision on the distinction that the workers' compensation carrier was not the third-party carrier, citing Employer: Icon Routing, a precedent the appellate court found did not support this premise. Reviewing prior Board decisions, the court noted that carriers were permitted to take credit from the consent date if explicitly stated in the consent letter, irrespective of whether the workers' compensation carrier and the third-party carrier were the same. As the Board failed to provide a rational explanation for departing from its established precedent, the appellate court reversed the decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationThird-Party ActionSettlement CreditLien on ProceedsCommencement DateStatutory InterpretationBoard PrecedentArbitrary and CapriciousAppellate ReviewRemand
References
11
Case No. 16-CV-3812, 16-CV-5302
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2018

Lighton Indus., Inc. v. Allied World Nat'l Assurance Co.

This case involves consolidated actions by Lighton Industries, Inc. and Hibuild Limited Liability Company against Allied World National Assurance Company and Mt. Hawley Insurance Company. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment regarding the insurers' duty to defend and indemnify them in an underlying personal injury action, the Tunkara Action, stemming from an August 16, 2014 accident at Brooklyn College. The court granted Lighton and Hibuild's motions for summary judgment, determining that Allied and Mt. Hawley owe a duty to defend the plaintiffs in the Tunkara Action. This decision was based on ambiguities in the insurance policies' Classification Limitation and Designated Ongoing Operations Exclusion, which were construed against the insurers. However, all motions for summary judgment concerning indemnification were denied, and these claims were dismissed without prejudice as premature, as liability in the underlying Tunkara Action had not yet been determined.

Insurance CoverageDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentContract InterpretationAmbiguityPolicy ExclusionClassification LimitationOngoing Operations ExclusionSubcontractor Liability
References
73
Case No. 03 Civ. 0332(AKH)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2004

In Re September 11th Liability Insurance Coverage Cases

This opinion and order addresses two Rule 12(c) motions regarding insurance coverage for the World Trade Center properties following the September 11, 2001, attacks. The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey sought a declaration that it is an "Additional Insured" under Zurich American Insurance Company's policies, while World Trade Center Properties LLC (WTCP) sought a declaration that Zurich is obligated to cover defense costs. The court, presided over by District Judge Hellerstein, denied both motions. It found ambiguity in the binder regarding the Port Authority's "Additional Insured" status, stating that the issue was premature without further discovery. Furthermore, the court held that New York Insurance Regulation 107 does not require rewriting Zurich's binder and policies to include defense costs, considering the unique circumstances, the sophistication of the insured, and the fact that Zurich explicitly excluded defense costs, which Silverstein (WTCP's affiliate) accepted after failing to secure conventional coverage. The court also affirmed supplemental jurisdiction over the insurance claims due to their close relation to the underlying September 11th liability cases.

Insurance CoverageSeptember 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterRule 12(c) MotionDeclaratory ReliefAdditional Insured StatusDefense CostsInsurance BinderNew York Insurance LawRegulation 107
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howe v. Howe

This case addresses significant issues related to the equitable distribution of a marital estate in a matrimonial action. The plaintiff's New York City Fire Department disability pension and his September 11th Victim Compensation Fund award are at the core of the dispute. The court determined that the separate property interest in the plaintiff's disability pension can be calculated by the pension administrator, even without extensive trial evidence, and modified the judgment to reflect this. Additionally, the court affirmed that the economic loss component of the September 11th Victim Compensation Fund award is considered 'compensation for personal injuries' under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (1) (d) (2), classifying it as the plaintiff's separate property based on legislative intent. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for entry of an appropriate qualified domestic relations order.

Equitable DistributionMarital PropertySeparate PropertyDisability PensionPersonal Injury CompensationSeptember 11th Victim Compensation FundDomestic Relations LawNew YorkMatrimonial LawPension Distribution
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Water Tunnel Contractors

A motion was filed seeking to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept two notices of appeal, dated July 10, 1978, and September 22, 1978. The court partially granted the motion, directing the Workers’ Compensation Board to accept the notice of appeal dated July 10, 1978. However, the motion was denied with respect to the notice of appeal dated September 22, 1978. The decision was rendered without costs to either party. Justices Mahoney, Greenblott, Main, Mikoll, and Herlihy concurred with the ruling.

Motion PracticeAppellate ProcedureWorkers' CompensationJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionCourt OrderPartial GrantNotice of AppealLegal CostsConcurring Opinion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Atheists, Inc. v. Port Authority

Plaintiffs (American Atheists, Dennis Horvitz, Kenneth Bronstein, and Jane Everhart) sued the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the National September 11 Memorial and Museum at the World Trade Center Memorial Foundation, Inc. The Plaintiffs alleged violations of the Establishment Clause, Equal Protection Clause, and state constitutions, challenging the display of a steel cross artifact in the National September 11 Museum. The Defendants filed motions for summary judgment. The court found that the Foundation's actions were attributable to the state. However, applying the Lemon test, the court determined that displaying the cross had a secular purpose, did not endorse religion, and did not create excessive entanglement. The court also rejected the Equal Protection and state law claims, concluding that no intentional discrimination was shown and that the state law claims failed for various reasons, including non-applicability to the bi-state agency or failure to comply with notice requirements. Therefore, the Defendants' motions for summary judgment were granted.

First AmendmentEstablishment ClauseEqual Protection ClauseSummary JudgmentState ActionReligious SymbolSeptember 11 MemorialMuseum ExhibitGovernment FundingConstitutional Law
References
80
Case No. 533663
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Peter Giglia

Claimant Peter Giglia appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a by making misrepresentations on work activity reports. Giglia failed to disclose side jobs he performed while receiving benefits between September 7, 2018, and May 16, 2019. The Board assessed mandatory and discretionary penalties, including forfeiture of benefits and permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the finding of a violation and the discretionary penalty but modified the mandatory penalty, specifying that benefits should be rescinded only from September 7, 2018, to April 29, 2019, rather than the entire period of lost wages.

Workers' CompensationMisrepresentationFraudWage Replacement BenefitsPenaltiesAppellate DivisionFalse StatementWork Activity ReportsForfeitureDisqualification
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,178 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