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

Gudz v. Jemrock Realty Co., LLC

The dissenting opinion, penned by Justice Manzanet-Daniels, argues against the permissibility of a class action concerning rent overcharges under the Rent Stabilization Law (RSL). The core contention is that the treble damages stipulated in RSL § 26-516 (a) constitute a mandatory "penalty" as defined by CPLR 901 (b), which explicitly forbids class actions for statutory penalties unless specific authorization exists. The dissent asserts that any waiver of these treble damages by a class representative is nullified by Rent Stabilization Code § 2520.13, as such a waiver would undermine the legislative intent to deter excessive rents and contravene public policy. Furthermore, the opinion posits that such a waiver compromises the adequacy of the class representative, potentially disadvantaging class members who might possess significant claims for treble damages.

Class ActionPenaltyTreble DamagesRent Stabilization LawCPLR 901 (b)Waiver of RightsAdequacy of Class RepresentativePublic PolicyStatutory InterpretationRent Overcharge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 1985

In Re Roblin Industries, Inc.

Roblin Industries, Inc., a Chapter 11 debtor, sought final court approval for a $12 million interim financing stipulation with Marine Midland Bank and Chemical Bank. United States Trust Company of New York, representing subordinated debenture holders, and other unsecured creditors objected to several key provisions, including a blanket waiver of potential claims against the banks, a stipulation of perfected security interests, cross-collateralization, and a super-priority for the lenders. The court found the waiver of rights and the pre-adjudication of lien validity to be inappropriate, as they could undermine the debtor's avoidance powers and circumvent adversary proceedings. Despite acknowledging the debtor's immediate need for funds and the difficulty in securing alternative financing, the court ultimately denied final approval of the proposed financing order. The existing interim financing protections were extended for a brief period to allow for a potential appeal.

Chapter 11 BankruptcyDebtor-in-Possession FinancingInterim Financing OrderCross-CollateralizationSuper-Priority LienCreditor ObjectionsWaiver of DefensesAvoidance PowersSecured DebtUnsecured Debt
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kowalski v. Fisher 40th & 3rd Co.

The case involves an appeal by UNESCO, Inc., a third-party defendant, against an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The lower court granted the plaintiff's motion to estop UNESCO from denying a stipulation to add its Workers' Compensation Law lien to a jury's damage award, and entered judgment against UNESCO. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the order but reversed the judgment, vacated the order, and denied the plaintiff's motion. The appellate court found no evidence of a written or open-court stipulation and no reliance by the plaintiff on the alleged stipulation, thus concluding that the Supreme Court erred in applying estoppel. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationStipulationEstoppelAppealJudgment ReversalCPLRAppellate ProcedureThird-Party ActionLien
References
6
Case No. ADJ7412016
Regular
May 10, 2011

DORIS CORTES vs. BANK OF THE WEST, ESIS

This case involves an applicant who sustained bilateral wrist and elbow injuries but experienced no lost time from work. The applicant stipulated to zero permanent disability, though the WCJ ordered an Almaraz/Guzman assessment, which the defendant sought to rescind. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the WCJ's order, and will approve the stipulations unless the applicant objects within twenty days. The Board found the stipulations adequate based on the record and the applicant's continued employment.

WCABPetition for RemovalAlmaraz/Guzman assessmentStipulations with Request for Awardpermanent disability ratingobjective findings of impairmentqualified medical evaluator (QME)American Medical Association Guidesmandatory settlement conference (MSC)rescinded order
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Richards

In this case, the court addressed a stipulated issue between a Wife and Husband regarding the equitable distribution of the Husband's pension and retirement plans. The central question was whether a prenuptial agreement, signed on December 18, 1989, three days before their marriage, effectively waived the Wife's rights to these assets. The agreement contained specific language for the Wife's waiver of pension rights and consent to beneficiary designations. However, the Wife did not execute further ERISA waiver documents during the marriage, and a request for such waivers came only after the divorce action commenced. Citing Federal law (ERISA) and relevant precedents, the court concluded that a prenuptial agreement signed before marriage cannot waive ERISA spousal rights. Furthermore, the court found it inequitable to enforce the contractual provision for additional documentation when the request was made for the first time during the divorce proceedings. Consequently, the court held that the prenuptial agreement does not bar the Wife's equitable claim to the disputed property.

Prenuptial Agreement ValidityERISA Spousal WaiverEquitable DistributionRetirement BenefitsPension PlansQualified Preretirement Survivor AnnuityMarital PropertySpousal RightsAntenuptial AgreementContractual Enforcement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Federated Mutual Insurance v. Woodstock '99, LLC

Plaintiff Federated Mutual Insurance Co., as subrogee of American Hardwall Supply Company of Rome, initiated an action against Woodstock ’99, LLC, seeking to recover over $600,000 for property damage sustained by its insured at the Woodstock ’99 festival. Woodstock, in turn, filed a third-party action against Ace Hardware Corporation. The central dispute revolved around Federated's motion for partial summary judgment to dismiss Woodstock’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, which asserted a waiver of subrogation. The court analyzed whether a waiver of subrogation clause in the Woodstock agreement was incorporated by reference into a separate letter agreement between Ace and American. Ultimately, the court determined that the American letter agreement merely referenced the Woodstock agreement for informational purposes and did not demonstrate a clear intent to bind American to the subrogation waiver. Consequently, the court granted Federated's motion for partial summary judgment and dismissed Woodstock’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense, alongside its Eleventh Affirmative Defense by stipulation.

Summary JudgmentSubrogationContract InterpretationInsurance PolicyWaiver ClauseIncorporation by ReferenceProperty DamageNegligence ClaimThird-Party ActionFestival Liability
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1998

Stoll v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

This case concerns an appeal regarding a stipulation of settlement in a personal injury claim, involving a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff initially refused to sign the release, asserting that his continuing workers' compensation benefits should remain unaffected, contrary to his attorney's counsel. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division reversed this order, finding that the plaintiff's attorney, despite a factual dispute over actual authority, possessed apparent authority to enter into the settlement. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the stipulation and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienStipulation of SettlementAttorney AuthorityApparent AuthorityMediationVacate StipulationAppellate ReviewNew York LawContract Enforcement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 1998

Bouloy v. Peters

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the petitioners' application to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance. The application was found untimely, having been filed more than two years after the petitioners became aware of the grounds for vacatur, despite the stipulation being signed much earlier in June 1993. Additionally, the court noted that any action by petitioner Hardie Bouloy against respondent Peters would be barred by the Workers' Compensation Law, as the injury occurred during employment by a co-worker operating a vehicle owned by Peters. The order was unanimously affirmed.

Stipulation of DiscontinuanceVacatur ApplicationTimelinessWorkers' Compensation LawCo-worker InjuryEmployment InjuryVehicle AccidentAppellate ReviewSupreme Court DecisionAffirmed Judgment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doyle v. City of New York

Plaintiff initiated a civil rights action against the City of New York, individual police officers, and Centre Firearms Co., Inc. following an alleged assault, false arrest, and malicious prosecution in 1982. Plaintiff sought to vacate a stipulation of discontinuance, claiming it was mistakenly applied to all defendants instead of only Centre Firearms. District Judge MacMAHON denied the plaintiff's motion, finding that the alleged mistakes by counsel were not grounds for relief under Fed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1). The court further awarded $500 in attorneys' fees to the defendants, noting that vacating the stipulation would not benefit the plaintiff as the federal claims lacked merit and state claims were time-barred.

Civil Rights ActionMotion to VacateStipulation of DiscontinuanceFed.R.Civ.P. 60(b)(1)Excusable NeglectAttorneys' Fees AwardedPendent JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsFalse ArrestMalicious Prosecution
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,426 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