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. 15-10243; 15-12329
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2019

Corporate Res. Servs., Inc. v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. (In re TS Emp't, Inc.)

James S. Feltman, the Chapter 11 Trustee for TS Employment, Inc. (TSE) and Corporate Resource Services, Inc. (CRS) Debtors, initiated an adversary proceeding against Wells Fargo, N.A. and Wells Fargo Financial Leasing, Inc. The Trustee sought to recover various transfers made to Wells Fargo, including $4.1 million in fees, a $2.5 million payroll overdraft, post-petition bank charges totaling $439,710.58, and a $240,220.26 WFFL copier lease payment, based on theories of constructive fraudulent transfer and preference. The Court found in favor of the Trustee for the $4.1 million in fees and the $439,710.58 in post-petition bank charges, deeming them excessive, punitive, or in violation of the automatic stay. However, the Trustee's claims regarding the $2.5 million payroll overdraft and the WFFL copier lease payment were denied. The Court also ordered an accounting for reimbursed legal fees to determine the recoverable portion.

BankruptcyFraudulent TransferPreferenceAutomatic StayDebtor and Creditor LawChapter 11Receivables FinancingCash ManagementIndemnificationLegal Fees
References
46
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuelsen v. Walder

This CPLR Article 78 proceeding was brought by petitioners, including individuals and organizations, against respondents, the MTA and NYCTA, challenging the mass closing of subway station token booths and customer assistant kiosks. Petitioners alleged violations of Public Authorities Law §§ 1205 (5) and 1204 (15), arguing that new public hearings were required after the respondents' decision to reinstitute closings, which had previously been rescinded. The court found that petitioners had standing and that the claims were timely filed. The court ruled that respondents violated Public Authorities Law § 1205 (5) by failing to hold fresh public hearings on the reinstituted mass closings, requiring them to do so before proceeding. However, the court dismissed the claim under Public Authorities Law § 1204 (15), stating that judicial intervention into the daily management of transit facilities was inappropriate.

Public Authorities LawCPLR Article 78Subway ClosingsToken BoothsKiosk ClosingsPublic HearingsAdministrative LawGovernment TransparencyPublic Benefit CorporationStatute of Limitations
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Cordell v. City of Oneida Youth Division

This workers' compensation case involved a claimant who, following a lump-sum settlement in 1983 for a 1980 back injury, sought to reopen the claim and receive payment for a CAT scan due to a change in medical condition. Although the case was inadvertently reopened and a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially ordered the carrier to resume medical payments, the Board reversed this decision, asserting the lump-sum settlement barred further benefits without proper reopening. The central issue revolved around whether medical expenses are encompassed within the term 'compensation' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (5-b), which governs comprehensive lump-sum settlements. The court ultimately affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that a lump-sum settlement under § 15 (5-b) generally forecloses additional medical expenses unless the case is properly reopened due to uncontemplated changes in the claimant's medical condition, a stance supported by legislative intent and precedent.

Lump-Sum SettlementMedical ExpensesPermanent Partial DisabilityReopening ClaimStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 15(5-b)Workers' Compensation Law § 13Carrier LiabilityBoard DecisionCausally Related Medical Expenses
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelley v. Lynaugh

This case involves appeals and cross-appeals concerning the validity of various absentee and special ballots cast in a November 5, 2013, general election for Councilmember, 4th Council District, Town of Brookhaven. Constance M. Kepert appealed parts of a Supreme Court order, and Michael A. Loguercio, Jr., cross-appealed other parts. The appellate court modified the lower court's determinations regarding the casting and canvassing of specific ballots. The modifications were based on voter intent derived from ballot markings, as well as adherence to Election Law regarding signature verification and timely ballot receipt. Ultimately, the court directed the Suffolk County Board of Elections not to cast or canvass ballots designated as exhibits 2, 8, and 17, and to cast and canvass ballots designated as exhibits 3, 6, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, and 24.

Election DisputeBallot ValidityVoter IntentAbsentee BallotsSpecial BallotsCanvassing ProceduresElection Law Article 16Suffolk County ElectionsAppellate ReviewGeneral Election 2013
References
8
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 06434 [188 AD3d 1403]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2020

Matter of Liuni v. Gander Mtn.

Claimant Joseph D. Liuni sustained a left distal bicep tendon rupture in 2007, resulting in a 22.5% schedule loss of use (SLU) award for his left arm. In 2014, he established a workers' compensation claim for his right shoulder, which was later amended in 2016 to include a consequential injury to his left shoulder. A physician determined a 27.5% SLU for the left arm due to the 2016 injury, which, when combined with the prior award, totaled an overall 50% SLU. The Workers' Compensation Board modified a WCLJ's determination, ruling that the bicep and shoulder injuries are not eligible for separate SLU awards as they both fall under awards for the left arm. Consequently, the Board deducted the 2007 22.5% SLU from the 2016 27.5% SLU, resulting in a 5% SLU award for the left arm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that Workers' Compensation Law § 15 (3) limits SLU awards to statutorily enumerated members and that separate awards for subparts of a body member would constitute an unauthorized monetary windfall.

Schedule Loss of Use (SLU)Workers' CompensationAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentLeft Arm InjuryBicep Tendon RuptureShoulder InjuryPrior Award DeductionMonetary WindfallStatutory Interpretation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 1977

McCallin v. Walsh

The dissenting opinion, penned by Murphy, P. J., challenges specific provisions of Local Law No. 5, particularly those concerning smoke venting and stairway pressurization, deeming them unconstitutional and unenforceable due to economic unfeasibility and lack of clear performance standards. The dissent clarifies that Local Law No. 5 does not mandate sprinklerization, interpreting the word "exempt" in its plain meaning. While agreeing with the majority on the Fire Commissioner's authority to create fire warden positions and denying class action status in the McCallin suit, the opinion criticizes Local Law No. 5 as hastily conceived and carelessly formulated, advocating for redrafted provisions to ensure effective fire safety programs.

Local Law No. 5Fire Safety RegulationsBuilding Code ChallengesUnconstitutional ProvisionsStairway PressurizationSmoke VentingStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentClass Action LitigationFire Warden Appointment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 1999

Claim of Fisher v. Combined Life Insurance

In November 1995, the claimant suffered work-related injuries to his neck, back, and knee. He received workers' compensation benefits for total disability until January 5, 1996. Subsequently, the employer challenged his entitlement to partial disability benefits, asserting that the claimant had no reduced earnings after that date. The Workers' Compensation Board ultimately concluded that the claimant's wage earning capacity in 1996 surpassed his average weekly wage, thereby denying benefits post-January 5, 1996. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the factual determination that the claimant's 1996 income from self-employment constituted earnings rather than profits under Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a).

Workers' CompensationPartial DisabilityReduced EarningsWage Earning CapacitySelf-Employment IncomeProfits vs. EarningsBoard FindingsFactual IssuesCredibilityAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Till v. Apex Rehabilitation

The claimant, a nursing assistant, sustained a work-related back and left shoulder injury in 2012, leading to an award of benefits. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge classified her with a 40% loss of wage-earning capacity. Upon administrative review, the Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed a permanent partial disability but reduced the loss of wage-earning capacity to 15%. The claimant appealed, arguing that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (5-a) prohibited a determination of less than a 25% loss for nonworking claimants, suggesting a conflict with Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (w) (xi) and (xii). The court rejected this argument, clarifying that 'wage-earning capacity' (for weekly benefits) and 'loss of wage-earning capacity' (for benefit duration) serve distinct purposes and are not inversely related. The court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityWorkers' Compensation LawStatutory InterpretationBenefit DurationWeekly Benefit RateUnemployed ClaimantsAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewStatutory Conflict
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 2,361 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