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
Nov 16, 1990

Continental Building Co. v. Town of North Salem

This case concerns an amended order regarding the award of attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988. The court re-affirmed its previous finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' and that no 'special circumstances' existed to deny the award, rejecting arguments regarding defendants' good faith, plaintiff's financial ability, or third-party contributions. The court then determined the reasonableness of the fees, finding the hours expended and the hourly rate to be appropriate. Despite the 'lodestar fee' calculation, the court, exercising its discretion, reduced the final award to prevent overpricing litigation, ultimately granting $318,977.78 in attorney's fees and $73,022.22 in disbursements and expenses.

Civil RightsAttorney's FeesPrevailing PartySpecial CircumstancesLodestar MethodDisbursementsExpert Witness FeesSection 1983Section 1988Exclusionary Zoning
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene v. Payne, Wood & Littlejohn

In 1952, the plaintiffs purchased land in the Town of Blooming Grove to develop a vacation resort, with a bungalow colony approved in 1960. Following a 1974 zoning change that eliminated bungalow colonies as a permitted use, the plaintiffs were denied a permit for additional units in 1986, leading them to assert vested rights. They hired the defendants, who commenced a Federal civil rights suit under 42 USC § 1983. Although the District Court initially ruled in the plaintiffs' favor on an unpleaded pendent State claim, the Second Circuit reversed due to the failure to separately plead the State claim. The plaintiffs then sued the defendants for legal malpractice, alleging negligence in drafting the Federal pleadings. The Supreme Court, Orange County, denied the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment, finding that expert testimony was necessary to determine if the defendants' conduct constituted malpractice, given the complexities of pendent jurisdiction and existing legal precedent. The appellate court affirmed this denial, concurring that factual findings and expert testimony are required to resolve the question of negligence.

Legal MalpracticeZoning OrdinanceVested RightsNonconforming UsePendent JurisdictionFederal Civil RightsDue ProcessSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewProfessional Negligence
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Luggage Workers Union, Local 60 & Major Moulders, Inc.

The court granted a motion for a stay, continuing the stay outlined in the order to show cause from May 2, 1960. This continuation is conditional upon the appellant serving and filing the record on appeal and appellant's points by May 26, 1960, with an argument notice for June 7, 1960. The appeal is to be argued or submitted when reached. The respondent's points are due to be served and filed by June 1, 1960. Justices Botein, P. J., Breitel, Rabin, Valente, and Stevens concurred with this decision.

MotionStayAppealOrder to Show CauseFiling DeadlinesCourt ProcedureConcurrence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between State Laundry Corp. & Laundry Workers Joint Board

The respondent sought to open a default on a motion to confirm an arbitration award, which was granted on November 29, 1960. The respondent's attorney was informed of the default on November 28, 1960, and was served with the order on December 13, 1960. Despite this, the motion to open the default was not filed until February 21, 1960, nearly three months later, with the only explanation being an unspecified family death. The court denied the motion, finding the excuse for the significant delay insufficient and the respondent's affidavit of merits lacking in facts necessary to vacate or modify the award. The court also affirmed that a party who participated in arbitration cannot claim the arbitrator exceeded authority, and judicial intervention is unwarranted for factual or legal errors if the arbitrator had jurisdiction.

ArbitrationDefault JudgmentMotion PracticeExcuse for DelayAffidavit of MeritsJurisdictionJudicial Review of Arbitration AwardsCivil Practice ActArbitrator AuthorityDenial of Motion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1960

In re Rollway Bearing Co.

The court addressed two motions: a motion to dismiss an appeal, which was denied, and a motion to place a case on the Term Calendar, which was granted for the May 1960 Term. The court also specified that exhibits could be presented during argument or printed as an appendix. Furthermore, it was noted that the respondent's brief must be filed by May 5, 1960, in compliance with rule VII of the Appellate Division, Fourth Department, Calendar Rules, or the case would be considered submitted based on oral argument alone. An order reflecting these decisions was entered on May 2, 1960.

Motion to DismissAppealTerm CalendarBrief Filing DeadlineOral ArgumentAppellate ProcedureCourt RulesExhibitsCase SubmissionProcedural Order
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 1996

Mark G. v. Sabol

Williams, J., dissents in part from the majority, asserting that plaintiffs' claims under the Adoption Assistance and Child Welfare Act (AACWA) are viable. The dissent argues that the 1994 amendment to 42 USC § 1320a-2 and the Supreme Court's decision in Blessing v Freestone clarify that Suter v Artist M. does not broadly preclude private rights of action under state plan provisions of the AACWA. Specifically, the judge finds that 42 USC § 671 (a)(16), related to case plans and review systems for children in foster care, creates an enforceable federal right under 42 USC § 1983. Additionally, the dissent argues that the G. family's claims under the State Social Services Law and for negligence due to a special relationship, and certain F. family claims under Social Services Law and the State Constitution, should be reinstated, citing failures by defendants to provide statutorily mandated services and protection to children in their care. The opinion concludes by emphasizing the importance of judicial enforcement to ensure accountability and protect vulnerable children.

Child WelfareFederal StatutesState StatutesPrivate EnforcementSection 1983 LitigationFoster Care SystemChild ProtectionGovernment LiabilityJudicial ReviewStatutory Amendments
References
40
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 1999

STS Management Development, Inc. v. New York State Department of Taxation & Finance

The plaintiffs, two limousine companies and their owner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which dismissed their causes of action against the New York State Department of Taxation and Finance and several employees. The plaintiffs had alleged retaliatory tax assessments and sought damages under 42 USC §§ 1983, 1985, and 18 USC § 1962 (RICO). The Supreme Court's dismissal of the claims was affirmed on appeal, holding that the Department of Taxation was not a 'person' under federal statutes and not an 'enterprise' under RICO, and that the individual defendants had minimal involvement or lacked requisite fraudulent intent for RICO claims.

civil rightsRICOracketeeringtaxationretaliationdismissalappellate courtsovereign immunitystatutory interpretationenterprise liability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1987

Kross v. Perales

The petitioner initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to compel the New York City Department of Social Services (NYCDSS) to reinstate medical assistance and food stamp benefits, following a "Decision After Fair Hearing." The NYCDSS subsequently complied. The petitioner then sought attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988, arguing he prevailed and that the NYCDSS delayed compliance. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the application for attorney's fees. On appeal, the order and judgment were affirmed, as the court found the petitioner had not established a bona fide civil rights claim under 42 USC § 1983 or demonstrated that his claim, concerning the administrative application of State statutes, was substantial enough.

CPLR article 78Attorney's Fees42 USC § 198842 USC § 1983Medical AssistanceFood StampsSocial Services LawAdministrative LawAppellate ProcedureCivil Rights Claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catania v. Horsford

This case addresses an application by defendants to vacate a July 8, 1999 judgment and compel plaintiffs' counsel to provide a taxpayer identification number to Allstate Insurance Company for a $10,000 settlement payment following a motor vehicle accident. Allstate argued that IRS codes (26 USC § 6045(f)) mandated the identification number, citing federal tax requirements for payments to attorneys. The court, however, found insufficient evidence and no direct precedent from the cited Burda v Ecker Co. case regarding 26 USC § 6045(f). Consequently, the court denied most of the defendants' application but did grant a reduction of $300 in taxed costs from the original judgment, noting the absence of a trial.

SettlementTaxpayer Identification NumberAllstate InsuranceMotor Vehicle AccidentJudgmentLegal FeesInternal Revenue CodeCPLRApplication DeniedApplication Granted in Part
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frank v. State

The plaintiff, a state employee, was terminated from the Office of Mental Retardation and Development Disabilities (OMRDD) after allegedly reporting improper governmental practices, including a patient's death. He subsequently filed a lawsuit asserting violations of the public employee whistleblower statute (Civil Service Law § 75-b) and 42 USC § 1983. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his first and third causes of action, and removed individual defendants from the second. On appeal, the court reversed the dismissal of the third cause of action, ruling that Labor Law § 740 (7)'s election of remedies provision does not apply to a 42 USC § 1983 claim against a public employer. However, the dismissal of the individual defendants from the second cause of action was affirmed, as OMRDD, the governmental entity, was already being sued directly.

Whistleblower ProtectionPublic Employee RightsRetaliation ClaimCivil Service LawLabor LawFirst Amendment Violation42 U.S.C. § 1983Supremacy ClauseElection of RemediesOfficial Capacity Suit
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 77 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