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 New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. CA 12-02386
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 2013

PRICE TRUCKING CORP. v. AAA ENVIRONMENTAL, INC.

Price Trucking Corp. (plaintiff-respondent) commenced an action alleging that First Niagara Bank, N.A. (defendant-appellant) violated Lien Law article 3-A by automatically transferring funds from AAA Environmental, Inc.'s operational account into its line of credit account, which Price Trucking claimed constituted a diversion of Lien Law trust assets. The Supreme Court granted Price Trucking's motion for partial summary judgment, finding First Niagara liable as a Lien Law statutory trustee and that it had both actual and constructive notice of the diversion. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, modified the order, denying Price Trucking's motion in its entirety. It concluded that First Niagara was not a statutory trustee under the facts and that the Supreme Court erred in applying a constructive notice standard, asserting that only actual notice is applicable to banks for the holder in due course defense under Lien Law § 72 (1).

Lien LawTrust AssetsHolder in Due CourseActual NoticeConstructive NoticeUniform Commercial CodeLender LiabilitySubcontractorsSummary JudgmentAppeal
References
10
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stennett v. Moveway Transfer & Storage, Inc.

This appellate decision addresses a plaintiff's appeal regarding the dismissal of several labor law claims. The court affirmed the lower court's dismissal of a statutory cause of action under Labor Law § 231, concluding that the plaintiff failed to exhaust administrative remedies, which is a prerequisite for such a claim. However, the court reversed the dismissal of the common-law breach of contract claim, asserting that employees can act as third-party beneficiaries to recover unpaid prevailing wages. Additionally, the court reinstated the claim for unpaid overtime wages under the Minimum Wage Act (Labor Law article 19), clarifying that this cause of action is independent of Labor Law § 231 and does not require prior administrative determination. The decision thus outlines the distinct requirements and remedies available for different types of wage claims under New York Labor Law.

CPLR 3211(a)(7)Motion to DismissPrevailing WageLabor Law § 231Private Right of ActionAdministrative ExhaustionBreach of ContractThird-Party BeneficiaryMinimum Wage ActLabor Law Article 19
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2014

New York State Assn. for Affordable Hous. v. Council of the City of N.Y.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to affirm the constitutionality of Local Law No. 44 (2012) of the City of New York. This local law, enacted by the City Council, aims to control and restrict the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) in its efforts to create affordable housing. Saxe argues that Local Law 44 improperly contravenes state legislature's statutory delegations of responsibility to HPD, restricting the agency's authority. The local law adds reporting requirements for HPD and developers, but also directs that certain contractors be deemed ineligible for prequalified lists if they fail to provide wage information or have a history of construction conditions. The dissent contends that Local Law 44 interferes with and frustrates the operation of state laws by imposing additional terms and conditions on HPD's supervisory role over affordable housing construction, thereby impeding HPD's discretion and flexibility. While not agreeing with the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection arguments, Saxe aligns with the City and HPD's conflict preemption argument, asserting that the local law is invalid.

Affordable HousingLocal Law PreemptionState Statutory AuthorityNew York City CharterHousing Preservation and Development (HPD)City Council LegislationConflict PreemptionMunicipal Home RuleContractor EligibilityWage Reporting Requirements
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Konopczynski v. Adf Constr. Corp.

Plaintiff brought a Labor Law and common-law negligence action for injuries sustained after tripping in a floor depression at a worksite. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, agreeing that the floor depressions were an integral part of the construction. However, the court reinstated the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, finding that the defendant failed to prove a lack of constructive notice regarding the hazardous conditions, despite the open and obvious nature of the depression.

Personal InjuryWorkplace AccidentTripping HazardSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityConstructive NoticeComparative FaultLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law Negligence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. 2008 NY Slip Op 31964(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 2008

Voultepsis v. Gumley-Haft-Klierer, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order denying a defendant's summary judgment motion and partially denying plaintiffs' motions regarding Labor Law claims, workers' compensation defense, and spoliation of evidence. The plaintiff, a superintendent, was injured in a fall from a ladder while replacing a floor in a cooperative apartment building, where the appellant served as the managing agent. The court found questions of fact regarding the appellant's statutory agency under Labor Law § 240 (1) and authority/notice under Labor Law § 200, thus affirming the denial of defendant's summary judgment. However, the court modified the order by granting plaintiffs' motion to strike the appellant's Workers’ Compensation Law defense, concluding the appellant lacked sufficient control over the plaintiff's work to be considered a special employer. The denial of the motion to strike the appellant's answer for spoliation was affirmed, as the appellant adequately explained its inability to find the requested documents.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Workers' Compensation LawStatutory AgentSpecial EmployerSpoliation of EvidenceLadder AccidentPersonal InjuryAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 12, 2006

Amantia v. Barden & Robeson Corp.

Plaintiff, a subcontractor's worker, sued defendants for personal injuries under Labor Law and common-law negligence after falling from a cargo truck while unloading forms. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) and partially denied defendants' motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting defendants' motion in its entirety and dismissing the complaint. It found Labor Law § 240 (1) inapplicable as there was no significant elevation risk, and Labor Law § 241 (6) claims, based on specific industrial code violations, were also dismissed due to their inapplicability to the facts.

Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Industrial Code ViolationsSummary Judgment MotionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentFall from ElevationWorker SafetyNegligenceAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doucoure v. Atlantic Development Group, LLC

Plaintiff, a construction worker, sustained injuries when concrete debris, dislodged by an employee of masonry subcontractor MC and O Construction, fell into an elevator shaft and struck him. The incident occurred while the plaintiff was pumping water out of the shaft, after the required safety planking had been removed. The plaintiff filed claims under Labor Law § 241-a and § 240 (1). The court found a violation of Labor Law § 241-a due to the absence of planking but determined that a factual question remained regarding proximate cause, preventing summary judgment for the plaintiff against Ogden Avenue Associates, L.E. The Labor Law § 241-a claim was dismissed against Atlantic Development Group, LLC and MC and O Construction, Inc., as they were not deemed owners' agents. The Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was dismissed entirely because the falling concrete chip was neither being hoisted nor secured at the time of the accident. The court modified the lower court's decision, granting Ogden Avenue Associates, L.E.'s cross motion for contractual indemnification against MC and O Construction, Inc., as any liability on Ogden's part would be purely statutory. This decision came after reargument, vacating a prior order from November 18, 2004.

Construction AccidentFalling DebrisElevator Shaft SafetyLabor LawSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationProximate CauseComparative NegligenceAppellate ReviewWorker Injury
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 15,590 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