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 Lowe

This is a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case involving a Trustee's objection to the Debtor's claim of exemption for accrued funds from a General Motors-United Auto Workers profit-sharing plan. The central legal question was whether these funds qualify for exemption under New York's "opt-out" exemption statutes, specifically Debtor and Creditor Law § 282 or CPLR § 5205(c), or as a spendthrift trust under federal bankruptcy law. The Debtor presented six arguments, including claims of express statutory exemption, exclusion from the bankruptcy estate, and a cash exemption, along with arguments based on the de minimis amount and equitable considerations. The Court meticulously analyzed New York's convoluted exemption schema and ultimately rejected each of the Debtor's proposed arguments, emphasizing that exemptions must be statutory and cannot be created by the court. Consequently, the Court sustained the Trustee's objection, ordering the Debtor to turn over the profit-sharing funds to the Trustee.

BankruptcyExemption LawProfit Sharing PlanChapter 7Debtor and Creditor LawSpendthrift TrustERISAStatutory InterpretationTrustee ObjectionNew York Exemption Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Handel

HSBC Bank USA objected to Joel M. Handel's exemptions of his interest in a profit-sharing plan and three life insurance policies in his Chapter 7 bankruptcy. HSBC argued that Handel's actions, including unauthorized withdrawals and false representations as a trustee, violated the plan's terms, ERISA, and IRC Section 401(a), thereby rendering his interest non-exempt. The court acknowledged Handel's violations but, citing Patterson v. Shumate, ruled that an anti-alienation provision enforceable under ERISA excludes the plan interest from the bankruptcy estate, irrespective of operational compliance or tax-qualified status. Additionally, the court found Handel adequately identified the life insurance policies. Consequently, HSBC's motion was denied, preserving Handel's exemptions.

BankruptcyERISAPension PlanExemptionAnti-alienationDebtor's EstateIRC 401(a)Life InsuranceDebtor's ConductFiduciary Duty
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Lipsky

Richard Lipsky, convicted of bribery and conspiracy to commit bribery, sought an exemption from the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA) prohibition on working for labor unions. The Department of Justice did not object, but the Department of Labor opposed the motion. The Court granted Lipsky's motion, finding that he demonstrated rehabilitation since his release from imprisonment in 2013. His work for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers and pro bono efforts, along with a clean record, supported this finding. The Court also determined that his proposed role as a consultant for the United Food and Commercial Workers Union, focusing on criminal justice reforms and not involving lobbying or fund handling, would not conflict with the LMRDA's purpose of preventing corruption in labor organizations.

RehabilitationLMRDA ExemptionBribery ConvictionLabor Union ConsultantCriminal Justice ReformFederal CourtJudicial DiscretionSentencing GuidelinesPost-Conviction ReliefEthical Conduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adamowicz v. Internal Revenue Service

Plaintiffs Michael Adamowicz and Elizabeth Fraser, acting as executors of the Estate of Mary Adamowicz, filed an action under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) against the Internal Revenue Service (IRS). They sought to compel the production of documents withheld by the IRS, related to three FOIA requests made in December 2005 and April 2007 concerning the IRS's examination of their mother's Estate and ensuing legal disputes. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The Court found that the IRS's searches for responsive documents were adequate and that the withheld documents fell within FOIA exemptions, specifically Exemption 2 (internal agency information), Exemption 3 (statutory exemptions under I.R.C. § 6103), Exemption 5 (privileges like deliberative process, attorney-client, and work-product), Exemption 6 (personnel and medical information), and Exemption 7 (law enforcement purposes, including invasion of privacy and confidential sources). Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was GRANTED, and Plaintiffs' motion was DENIED.

FOIA ExemptionsIRS DisclosureTaxation LitigationAgency Search AdequacyDeliberative ProcessAttorney Work-ProductConfidentiality AssuranceSummary Judgment MotionGovernment Information ActPrivacy Interests
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sage Realty Corp. v. ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc.

Plaintiffs, consisting of the owners of six commercial buildings and their managing agent, Sage Realty Corporation, brought an antitrust claim against the Realty Advisory Board on Labor Relations, Inc. (RAB) and ISS Cleaning Services Group, Inc. (ISS). The plaintiffs alleged that during a 1996 office building maintenance employee strike in New York City, the defendants engaged in a group boycott. This boycott purportedly blocked union members from returning to work for certain cleaning service contractors, thereby preventing plaintiffs from employing those union members. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that the plaintiffs failed to allege a cognizable antitrust injury and that the non-statutory labor exemption barred the claim. The court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs did not sufficiently demonstrate antitrust injury and that the defendants' conduct was protected by the non-statutory labor exemption.

Antitrust LawGroup BoycottLabor ExemptionCollective BargainingLabor StrikeCleaning Service IndustryCommercial Real Estate MarketMotion to DismissSherman ActNon-Statutory Labor Exemption
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McBeth v. Gabrielli Truck Sales, Ltd.

Plaintiffs McBeth and Cascone, former employees of Gabrielli dealerships, sued Gabrielli for overtime compensation under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Defendants sought summary judgment, arguing two statutory exemptions applied: the `partsmen` exemption and the `motor carrier` exemption. The court analyzed the plaintiffs' duties, including their roles in the parts department and occasional driving/loading tasks. The court concluded that while plaintiffs could be broadly defined as partsmen, their compensation structure and regular hours did not align with the legislative intent of the partsmen exemption, which focused on irregular hours and commission-based pay. Furthermore, their loading activities were deemed too trivial to qualify for the motor carrier exemption, which requires a direct impact on vehicle safety. Consequently, the court denied Defendants' motion for summary judgment on both grounds.

FLSAOvertime CompensationPartsmen ExemptionMotor Carrier ExemptionSummary JudgmentEmployee ClassificationStatutory ExemptionCommission-based PayLoading ActivitiesSafety of Operation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Amerogen v. Donnini

The case concerns a plaintiff injured after falling from a porch roof while working for defendants Samuel and Marsini Donnini, who owned the property. The property was a four-bedroom house continuously rented to college students, used solely for commercial gain. The core legal question is whether the defendants are exempt from the strict liability provisions of New York Labor Law §§ 240 and 241, which typically exempt "owners of one and two-family dwellings who contract for but do not direct or control the work." The Appellate Division initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, concluding they were exempt. However, the higher court reversed this decision, asserting that the exemption does not apply to homeowners who use their premises entirely and solely for commercial purposes, like a rooming house, as such owners are not considered to lack the sophistication or business acumen to understand and insure against statutory liabilities. Therefore, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was denied.

Worker InjuryStrict LiabilityLabor Law § 240Labor Law § 241Homeowner ExemptionCommercial DwellingRental PropertyStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentAppellate Reversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. 286/10
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiffs Delores Jackson, Shawn Jackson, and Odamis Villa initiated a lawsuit against Defendant Bank of America, alleging that the bank unlawfully froze their accounts in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), CPLR 5222-a. The plaintiffs contended that the bank failed to provide required exemption notices and claim forms, improperly aggregated funds from multiple accounts, and closed accounts without due process, thereby denying them access to statutorily exempt funds. Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the EIPA does not confer a private right of action for debtors against banks and that its actions were supported by documentary evidence. The court reviewed the defendant's evidence, which was found to support the plaintiffs' allegations, and concluded that an implied private right of action exists under the EIPA, aligning with its legislative intent to protect vulnerable account holders. Consequently, the court denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims and also ruling against the bank's preemption argument.

Exempt Income Protection ActCPLR 5222-aPrivate Right of ActionImplied Right of ActionBank Account RestraintJudgment Debtor RightsConsumer ProtectionMotion to DismissPreemptionBanking Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1980

Jewish Board of Family & Children's Service, Inc. v. Shaffer

This case involves an appeal from a judgment regarding the tax-exempt status of a 104-acre parcel owned by a petitioner in the Town of Mount Pleasant. The petitioner operates a school for socially deviant and delinquent youths, utilizing the land for integral educational activities such as camping and survival training. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, had granted the petition, confirming the tax exemption but denying interest, costs, and disbursements. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, upholding both the tax exemption due to the land's educational use and the denial of additional awards, citing no statutory provision requiring them. The court also confirmed that a CPLR article 78 proceeding was a proper avenue for review.

Tax ExemptionReal Property Tax LawCPLR Article 78Educational PropertyProperty AssessmentJudicial ReviewAppellate Court DecisionMunicipal LawCosts and DisbursementsLand Use
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,548 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