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

Residents Against Flooding v. Reinvestment Zone Number Seventeen

The case involves Residents Against Flooding (RAF) and individual plaintiffs suing the City of Houston, Reinvestment Zone Number Seventeen (TIRZ 17), and the Memorial City Redevelopment Authority. Plaintiffs sought declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that defendants' drainage and development policies in TIRZ 17 caused increased flooding in their residential neighborhoods, violating their Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights and Article 1, Section 19 of the Texas Constitution. Specifically, they claimed defendants diverted stormwater, approved developments without sufficient mitigation, and postponed residential flood relief. The defendants filed motions to dismiss for lack of standing, failure to state a claim, and immunity. The Court dismissed the state-created-danger claims, found federal and state takings claims not ripe, and concluded that all Section 1983 claims were time-barred. Additionally, the Court found the Zone not a suable entity and dismissed claims based on governmental immunity, ultimately granting all motions to dismiss.

Municipal LiabilityFlood ControlProperty RightsConstitutional LawDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefDue ProcessFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentEleventh Amendment
References
232
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenbloom v. New York State Tax Commission

The petitioner, a real estate appraiser, challenged an unincorporated business tax assessment imposed by the State Tax Commission for the years 1967-1973. The court referenced a prior ruling (Matter of Rosenbloom v State Tax Comm.) which established that the petitioner's activities did not constitute a profession, thus not exempting him from the tax. Finding no new evidence to warrant a change in position, the court upheld the commission's determination regarding the professional exemption. Furthermore, the petitioner's attempt to deduct the fair value of his wife's uncompensated services was denied, as the expense was neither paid nor incurred during the taxable year, failing to meet the criteria for ordinary and necessary business deductions. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

real estate appraiserunincorporated business taxtax assessmentprofessional exemptionbusiness expenseCPLR Article 78State Tax CommissionAlbany Countyprior precedentdeduction denial
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Craftmatic Comfort Manufacturing Corp. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a Pennsylvania corporation selling adjustable beds, challenged a sales and use tax assessment for the period of March 1978 to February 1981. The corporation argued that sales of its beds, when prescribed by a physician, should be exempt as medical equipment under Tax Law § 1115 (a) (3). The respondent's determination disallowed this exemption, claiming the beds were not primarily used for medical purposes. The court, however, found the respondent's decision lacked substantial evidence, citing approvals from the Workers’ Compensation Board, Medicare, and the FDA, all of which classified the beds as medical devices or hospital beds. Consequently, the court annulled the portion of the determination denying the exemption for prescription sales and remitted the case for further proceedings.

Sales TaxUse TaxMedical Equipment ExemptionHospital BedsPhysician's PrescriptionSubstantial EvidenceTax LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewTax Assessment
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wortman v. State Tax Commission

The petitioner, a salesman for Madison Sportswear and Wardrobe Makers, was assessed unincorporated business taxes for the years 1971-1974 by the State Tax Commission. He worked on a straight commission, maintained a home office, and received no employee benefits. Despite some evidence suggesting an employer-employee relationship, the Commission determined his activities constituted an unincorporated business, making his earnings subject to the tax. The court, in a CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the Commission's determination, dismissing the petition.

Unincorporated Business TaxSalesmanCommission-basedEmployer-Employee RelationshipTax LawState Tax CommissionCPLR Article 78Tax LiabilityBusiness Expenses
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pochter v. State Tax Commission

The case concerns Leonard Pochter, an outside commission salesman, challenging a State Tax Commission determination classifying him as an independent contractor, thus subjecting him to unincorporated business tax for 1966-1972. Pochter contended he was an employee of two wholesale apparel firms, which would exempt him from the tax. Despite some company restrictions and requirements, the Commission found a lack of substantial control over his sales methods. The court affirmed the Commission's decision, citing insufficient evidence of employer supervision to establish an employee relationship, thereby dismissing Pochter's petition.

unincorporated business taxindependent contractor statusemployee statuscommission salesmantax assessmentCPLR Article 78State Tax Commissionapparel industryemployer control testtax law interpretation
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pearl v. State Tax Commission

This proceeding reviewed a determination by the State Tax Commission that a sales representative for Gravely Furniture Company, Inc. was subject to unincorporated business taxes for multiple years (1967-1973). The Commission found no employer-employee relationship due to insufficient direction and control by Gravely over the petitioner's activities. The court affirmed this determination, concluding there was substantial evidence, noting the petitioner was compensated on commission, not covered by workers' compensation or company pension, filed Federal Schedule 'C', paid self-employment taxes, and hired another sales representative. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Unincorporated Business TaxTax LawSales RepresentativeEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorState Tax CommissionCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCommission-based Compensation
References
2
Case No. CV-24-1494
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2026

Matter of Beeline.Com, Inc. v. State of N.Y. Tax Appeals Trib.

Petitioner, Beeline.Com, Inc., a Florida company, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the New York Tax Appeals Tribunal. The Tribunal upheld a sales tax assessment imposed by the Department of Taxation and Finance on Beeline.Com's vendor management system (VMS), deeming it a sale of licenses to use prewritten computer software under Tax Law article 28. Beeline.Com argued it primarily provided nontaxable services and its software was customized, not prewritten. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the Tribunal's determination, finding that the VMS license constituted a sale of tangible personal property, was prewritten software despite minor reconfigurations, and was the core element of Beeline.Com's transactions, not incidental to services.

Sales TaxComputer Software LicensePrewritten SoftwareTax Appeals TribunalCPLR Article 78Vendor Management System (VMS)Tangible Personal PropertyTrue Object TestPrimary Function TestTax Law Article 28
References
15
Case No. 14-07-01042-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2008

Tenaska Frontier Partners, LTD v. Bill Sullivan, in His Official Capacity as Tax Collector for Grimes County, Anderson-Shiro Consolidated Independent School District and Grimes County

Tenaska Frontier Partners, Ltd. attempted to pay its ad valorem taxes by mail, but the payment was returned due to insufficient postage. The tax collector, Bill Sullivan, then marked the payment as delinquent and assessed penalties and interest amounting to $159,158.66. Tenaska paid under protest and sought a refund, which was denied. The company subsequently filed suit, and the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the appellees. This court affirmed the trial court's decision, holding that insufficient postage does not constitute "postage prepaid" under section 1.08 of the Tax Code, thus making the initial payment untimely. The court emphasized that an unambiguous statute should be construed according to its plain language and that a liberal construction does not permit altering statutory language.

Taxation LawAd Valorem TaxesProperty TaxDelinquent PaymentInsufficient PostageStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentTax Code Section 1.08Mailbox RuleAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Louchheim v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioners appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which had denied their CPLR article 78 petition. The petition aimed to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton, dated October 20, 2005. The ZBA's determination had granted NL Housing, LLC, a variance for the enlargement of two structures that served as a labor camp for migrant workers, benefiting from a preexisting nonconforming use. The petitioners argued that this variance violated Southampton Code § 330-167 (B) (1) (a), also known as the 50% rule, which limits nonconforming use expansion to 50% of the floor area as measured from when the use first became nonconforming in 1957. The Appellate Court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, granted the petition, annulled the ZBA's determination, and denied the application for the variance, finding that the ZBA had incorrectly interpreted the zoning ordinance.

ZoningVarianceNonconforming UseMigrant HousingZoning Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation50% RuleSuffolk County
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 654 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