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

Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co. v. Interstate Distribution, Inc. (In Re Interstate Cigar Co.)

This Memorandum Decision addresses the Plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment regarding damages in an adversary proceeding. The Committee of Unsecured Creditors of Interstate Cigar Co., Inc. sued Interstate Distribution, Inc. and Congress Financial Corporation, alleging violations of Article 6 of the Uniform Commercial Code (Bulk Sales Law). A New York State Appellate Court had already determined Congress's liability for violating the Bulk Sales Law. The Bankruptcy Court, presided over by Judge Dorothy Eisenberg, was tasked with determining the appropriate damages. The court granted summary judgment in favor of the Plaintiff, concluding that Congress is liable for the value of the inventory and equipment transferred, fixing damages at $14,976,662.00. The decision also awarded prejudgment interest to compensate the Plaintiff for Congress's wrongful retention of asset value, with the specific interest rate to be determined in a subsequent hearing.

Bankruptcy LawBulk Sales LawUniform Commercial Code Article 6Summary JudgmentDamages CalculationPrejudgment InterestFraudulent ConveyanceAsset TransferCreditor ProtectionTrustee Powers
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Raymond & Whitcomb Co.

The United States, on behalf of the Postal Service, sued Raymond & Whitcomb Co. (R&W) for misusing non-profit mail rates, resulting in a $398,960.05 deficiency, bringing claims under the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act, unjust enrichment, and the False Claims Act. The court found that R&W, a for-profit entity, collaborated with non-profit institutions (Metropolitan Museum of Art and Smithsonian Institution) on travel programs, and its significant financial stake in these ventures made the mailings ineligible for non-profit rates. Consequently, summary judgment was granted to the United States on the Federal Debt Collection Procedure Act and unjust enrichment claims, ordering R&W to pay the deficiency. However, the court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment on the False Claims Act count, determining that a genuine issue of material fact existed regarding R&W's knowledge of the falsity of the mailing statements—specifically, whether their actions constituted reckless disregard or mere negligence. The case will proceed to trial to resolve the scienter element of the False Claims Act claim, while the debt for the misused postage is established.

Mail fraudNon-profit mail rateFalse Claims ActFederal Debt Collection Procedure ActUnjust enrichmentSummary judgmentCooperative mailingsPostal Service regulationsScienterReckless disregard
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 41 v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

Plaintiffs challenged the defendants' wage rate determinations for work on Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP) projects, arguing that HUD's regulation 24 C.F.R. § 968.3 improperly classified 'development' work as 'operation' work, leading to lower wages. They also alleged violations of New York State Public Housing and Labor Laws. The court dismissed the federal claims (Counts One through Four) for lack of jurisdiction due to the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the Wage and Hour Administrator, emphasizing the need for agency expertise. The remaining state law claim (Count Five) was dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of federal claims, leading to the dismissal of the entire complaint against all defendants.

Wage Rate DisputesComprehensive Improvement Assistance ProgramHousing Act of 1937Davis-Bacon ActAdministrative Exhaustion DoctrineStatutory InterpretationHUD RegulationsFederal Court JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionPublic Housing Projects
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America

This case involves a review of a determination finding discrimination. The court affirmed the discrimination finding, stating it was based on substantial evidence. However, the Commissioner's calculation of damages was found to be erroneous. The original damage award for eight complainants was based on an hourly wage rate applicable to only one. The court modified the awards for complainants whose actual wages were less than the hourly wage rate used by the Commissioner, accepting their actual hourly wage rate and hours lost. Awards where actual wages exceeded the determined rate were not disturbed due to the absence of a cross-appeal.

DiscriminationDamagesWage RateErroneous ComputationJudicial ReviewModificationComplainantsHourly WageSubstantial EvidencePanel Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frances Schervier Home & Hospital Inc. v. Axelrod

This case concerns an appeal regarding Medicaid reimbursement rates for a residential health care facility. The Department of Health (DOH) disallowed certain costs from the petitioner's 1981 cost report, affecting 1983-1985 rates. Petitioner appealed, arguing it was a data error, not an alternative cost allocation method requiring prior approval. After DOH denied the appeal, the Supreme Court annulled DOH's determination, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding DOH's interpretation of its regulations regarding data error corrections to be irrational.

Medicaid reimbursement ratescost reportDepartment of Healthresidential health care facilityCPLR article 78administrative lawdata errorcost allocationagency interpretationirrational interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2011

Tzic v. Kasampas

The injured plaintiff fell 15 feet from a sidewalk shed opening at a construction site due to inadequate safety devices. The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) against the owners, Christina Serafis Kasampas and Nicholas Serafis, and determined the plaintiff suffered a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The court denied the owners' cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification and partially denied MSS Construction Corp.'s cross-motion to dismiss claims. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this order, finding the statutory violation was a proximate cause of the injuries and rejecting arguments of contributory negligence or the owners' lack of control over safety.

Construction AccidentFall from HeightSidewalk ShedLabor Law 240(1)Strict LiabilityGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentIndemnification ClaimsProximate Cause
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Traffic Executive Ass'n-Eastern

Plaintiffs, employees of the Eastern Weighing and Inspection Bureau (EWIB), sought protective benefits under the Staggers Act after their employment was terminated due to EWIB ceasing operations. An arbitration board determined that EWIB employees were not 'employees of a rate bureau' and thus not entitled to the benefits. Plaintiffs subsequently filed a complaint in federal court, alleging violations of the Staggers Act, mail fraud, RICO, and common law fraud, and moved for a trial de novo. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the arbitration award should be upheld. The court reviewed the arbitration award under the limited provisions of the Railway Labor Act (RLA), finding no grounds to set it aside. The court granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, denied plaintiffs' motion for a trial de novo, and dismissed the complaint.

Staggers ActArbitration AwardSummary JudgmentRailway Labor ActCollateral EstoppelDue ProcessArticle III CourtsJury TrialRICOAdministrative Procedure Act
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Liu

The New York City Comptroller's determination from October 13, 2010, which set prevailing wage rates for “laborers” and “city laborers,” was unanimously confirmed by the court. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court found that the Comptroller's conclusion, stating that mason tenders in Local 79 perform duties comparable to those of laborers, was supported by substantial evidence gathered from investigations and site visits. The court rejected the petitioner’s argument regarding arbitrary distinctions between

Prevailing wagelabor lawcity laborersmason tendersCPLR article 78judicial reviewjob dutieswage ratesNew York City Comptrolleremployment classification
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. v. Nemko, Inc. (In re Nemko, Inc.)

Plaintiff The Chase Manhattan Bank, N.A. (Chase) filed an adversary proceeding against Defendant United Jersey Bank (UJB, later Summit Bank) and Nemko, Inc. concerning the priority of security interests in Nemko's accounts receivable. An initial court order awarded UJB priority, leading Nemko to pay UJB $649,256. This decision was later vacated by the District Court, which remanded the case to determine if Nemko's chief executive office had transferred from New Jersey to New York. The court found that Nemko's office had indeed moved, causing UJB's (Summit's) security interest to lapse due to a failure to file in New York. Chase was subsequently granted judgment on the principal amount, with the issue of prejudgment interest reserved. Following further appeals and a settlement where Summit paid the principal to Chase, Chase filed the instant motion for summary judgment to determine its entitlement to prejudgment interest for the period Summit held the funds. The court granted Chase's motion, concluding that under New York C.P.L.R. § 5001(a) and 11 U.S.C. § 105(a), an award of prejudgment interest at a rate of 5% was equitable to compensate Chase for the loss of use of the funds.

Prejudgment InterestSummary JudgmentSecurity InterestAccounts ReceivableUniform Commercial CodeBankruptcyChapter 11Lien PriorityChief Executive Office TransferCash Collateral
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Country Installers v. Commissioner of Labor

The petitioner, a subcontractor to Nickerson Corporation, was found by the Department of Labor to have underpaid its employees for sheet metal work during a renovation project at Watervliet High School. Following an audit and a hearing, the Department determined a total underpayment of $3,639.74 but assessed no civil penalty due to the non-willful nature of the violation. The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the wage rate schedule and employee classification. However, the court ruled the proceeding was time-barred as it was not commenced within four months of the petitioner receiving the prevailing wage rate schedule. Consequently, the court's review was limited to whether the underpayment determination was supported by substantial evidence, which it found to be the case, thereby confirming the determination and dismissing the petition.

Time-barredPrevailing WageSubcontractorSheet Metal WorkUnderpaymentLabor LawCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWage Rate ScheduleJob Classification
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 15,892 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