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. ADJ370366 (VNO 0526012)
Regular
Jun 24, 2009

JUAN ZAMANO vs. DIVERSE STAFFING, F. A. RICHARDS AND ASSOCIATES

This case involved a dispute over an applicant's entitlement to temporary disability benefits and recommended neck surgery following an admitted industrial injury. The employer sought reconsideration, arguing the medical evidence supporting the WCJ's award was insufficient and that a different statutory scheme for medical treatment disputes should apply. The Appeals Board found the employer's arguments regarding statutory interpretation unpersuasive and, critically, that the employer's utilization of the correct dispute resolution process for spinal surgery, specifically whether Utilization Review (UR) was properly conducted under Labor Code section 4610, was unclear. Consequently, the Board rescinded the WCJ's decision and remanded the case to the trial level to determine if the employer engaged in UR, instructing the WCJ to issue a new decision based on that determination and relevant case law.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryTemporary DisabilityNeck SurgerySpinal SurgeryQualified Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 4062Labor Code Section 4610Utilization Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. ADJ6693564; ADJ7721572 ADJ7721564; ADJ7721602 ADJ7721615; ADJ7721619 ADJ7731091
Regular
Mar 30, 2012

SHARON PORTER vs. SAVEMART SUPERMARKET, PEGASUS RISK MANAGEMENT

This case involves applicant Sharon Porter's petition for removal, seeking to overturn an administrative law judge's denial of her Petition for Relief. Porter alleged that California's statutory and regulatory scheme for obtaining Qualified Medical Evaluator (QME) panels unconstitutionally discriminates against represented workers, offering them a slower process and fewer choices than unrepresented workers. However, Porter has since obtained a QME, rendering her claim that she is currently suffering a detriment moot. Therefore, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed her petition for removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalWCJDWC Medical UnitQualified Medical EvaluatorQME panelstatutory-regulatory schemeLabor Code section 139.2(h)(1)Administrative Director Rule 31.1(c)due process
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Singer v. Jefferies & Co.

Plaintiff sued his former employer, Jefferies & Co., and its CEO, Boyd Jefferies, for damages to his reputation due to an illegal stock trading scheme. Defendants sought to compel arbitration under NASD rules, which the trial court granted. The Appellate Division reversed, concluding the dispute was not arbitrable, but this Court reversed the Appellate Division's decision. This Court held that the broad arbitration agreement, governed by the Federal Arbitration Act, applies even when the underlying controversy involves illegal activity and statutory violations. The Court further determined that defendants did not waive their right to arbitration by engaging in preliminary litigation and that the claim against Boyd Jefferies was arbitrable as both were 'associated persons' of a member.

ArbitrationSecurities LawFederal Arbitration ActEmployment DisputeReputation DamageIllegal Stock TradingWaiverArbitrabilityNASD CodeFederal Policy
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brang Co. v. State University Construction Fund

The plaintiff, a contractor, sued the State University Construction Fund for damages, alleging negligence for failing to include prevailing wage schedules in bid specifications as required by Labor Law § 220. The plaintiff claimed this omission forced them to pay higher wages than anticipated. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision. It found that both parties had ignored the statutory scheme, and the plaintiff failed to object to the missing wage schedule before signing the contract. The court concluded that the plaintiff could not recover for its own carelessness by not acquiring information available by law before bidding, thereby dismissing the complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic ContractsLabor Law ViolationsContract BreachSummary Judgment ReversalContractor NegligenceBid SpecificationsStatutory DutyDamages ClaimState University Construction Fund
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anonymous v. Peters

This special proceeding, initiated under CPLR article 78 and converted into a declaratory judgment action, challenges the constitutionality of Social Services Law § 422. The petitioner argues that the statute violates procedural due process by allowing names to be added to the New York State Central Register of Child Abuse and Maltreatment without a prior hearing and by lacking a time limit for post-deprivation hearings. Judge Leonard B. Austin dismissed the petition, ruling that the statutory scheme provides sufficient procedural safeguards, including a post-deprivation hearing with a higher standard of proof, which adequately protects due process rights while serving the State's compelling interest in child protection.

Constitutional LawDue ProcessChild Abuse RegisterSocial Services LawProcedural SafeguardsStigma Plus TestDeclaratory JudgmentArticle 78 ProceedingState InterestChild Protection
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trustees of the Amalgamated Cotton Garment & Allied Industries Fund v. Baltimore Sportswear, Inc.

This ERISA action involves a dispute between a multiemployer retirement plan and an employer regarding withdrawal liability. The retirement plan sued the employer to recover overdue quarterly payments, as the employer failed to make any payments after its withdrawal and did not properly initiate arbitration. The employer argued that its liability should be limited due to its net worth and that 29 U.S.C. § 1405 was not subject to arbitration. The court rejected the employer's arguments, emphasizing that the statutory scheme requires continued quarterly payments pending arbitration and that claims under § 1405 must also be raised in arbitration. Consequently, the court granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff for the delinquent payments, interest, attorneys' fees, and costs, while denying the employer's cross-motion for discovery.

ERISAMultiemployer Pension Plan Amendments ActMPPAAWithdrawal LiabilityPension PlanArbitrationSummary JudgmentQuarterly PaymentsInsolvent EmployersStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sullivan v. Harnisch

This dissenting opinion, penned by Chief Judge Lippman, argues against the majority's decision, which he believes unduly narrows the Wieder exception to at-will employment. Lippman contends that compliance officers in the financial services industry, like the plaintiff Sullivan, deserve protection from retaliatory termination for performing their statutorily mandated duties, similar to attorneys in law firms. He highlights the dangers of unchecked abuses in financial schemes, citing the Madoff scandal, and warns that the majority's ruling could facilitate fraud by discouraging compliance officers from reporting illegal and unethical behavior. The dissent asserts that the common law, through the Wieder exception, should provide this protection without needing new statutory remedies, and that the order should be reversed to reinstate the plaintiff's cause of action.

whistleblower protectionat-will employmentcompliance officersfinancial services industrysecurities lawMadoff scandalprofessional ethicscorporate governanceretaliatory terminationinvestment advisers
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colon v. Major Perry Street Corp.

This opinion addresses whether undocumented workers are eligible to recover unpaid minimum wage and overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), particularly in light of the Second Circuit's Palma decision, which limited remedies for undocumented workers under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court holds that undocumented workers remain eligible for FLSA recovery, distinguishing FLSA from NLRA based on their remedial schemes, statutory approaches to unlawful activity, and the nature of backpay (retrospective vs. post-termination). Consequently, the court approves a Notice of Pendency including language that permits undocumented workers to participate in the collective action regardless of immigration status and denies the defendants' motion for discovery into the immigration status of potential plaintiffs.

FLSANYLLUndocumented WorkersImmigration StatusMinimum WageOvertime WagesCollective ActionNotice of PendencyDiscovery MotionNLRA
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,244 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