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. 2022 NY Slip Op 05840
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 19, 2022

Exley v. Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc.

The plaintiff, Bruce Exley, allegedly sustained injuries after falling from a defective ladder while attempting to repair a leak on a roof owned by the defendant, Cassell Vacation Homes, Inc. Exley, who lived rent-free on the property in exchange for maintenance, brought an action against the defendant, citing a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court granted the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the plaintiff successfully demonstrated, prima facie, that the ladder was defective and improperly secured, constituting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) and a proximate cause of his injuries.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentElevated Work SiteSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityLabor Law § 240(1)Proximate CauseSafety DevicesDefective LadderAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Friedman

This case examines whether claimants are eligible for unemployment benefits for a week in July during which they received vacation pay from their employer. The court references a previous decision, *Matter of Miranda* (Catherwood), which allowed such benefits under certain conditions. However, the court highlights that subdivision 3 of section 591 of the Labor Law was amended in 1963 specifically to correct inequities and prevent employees from receiving both vacation pay and unemployment benefits for the same period. Despite the board's finding that the union agreement did not designate a vacation period, the court interpreted the agreement's clauses as designating the first week in July for vacation. The court concluded that upholding the board's original decision would undermine the legislative intent of the 1963 amendment. Consequently, the court reversed the board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsVacation PayLabor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative IntentCollective Bargaining AgreementBoard Decision ReversalRemandWorkers' RightsEmployer Obligations
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braun v. Carey

This case involves an appeal by defendants from an order denying their motion to vacate a summary judgment previously granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for legal services, and the defendants initially denied retainer and services, though their answer contained an inadvertent admission. After the plaintiff obtained summary judgment, the defendants sought to vacate it, arguing they were denied the opportunity to respond to late-served reply affidavits and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the retainer and the extent of services. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to vacate, but the appellate court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact were indeed present, making summary judgment inappropriate. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to vacate the original order and allowed them leave to serve an amended answer.

AppealSummary JudgmentMotion to VacateAmended AnswerTriable Issues of FactLegal ServicesRetainer AgreementProcedural ErrorAppellate ReviewCivil Practice Rules
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 18, 2001

AIU Insurance v. Empire Insurance

The petitioner initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 75 seeking to vacate arbitration awards. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, initially denied the petition. Upon appeal, the higher court modified the order to include a provision confirming the awards, and as modified, affirmed the order. The appellate court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate any valid basis to vacate the arbitration awards, thus upholding the denial of the application to vacate, while also noting that the awards should have been confirmed by the lower court.

ArbitrationCPLR Article 75Vacate AwardsAppealSupreme CourtOrder ModifiedAwards ConfirmedNew York LawJudicial ReviewAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. Claim No. 300000720; ECF Doc. # 7818
Regular Panel Decision

In re MF Global Inc.

This case involves an objection by the SIPA Trustee of MF Global Inc. (MFGI) to a putative class claim filed by former employees for damages under the WARN Act and for unpaid accrued vacation time. The Court previously dismissed the WARN Act claims in related adversary proceedings (Thielmann I and II). The class claimants conceded their WARN Act claims were barred, leading the Court to sustain the Trustee's objection to those claims. However, the Court overruled the Trustee's objection to the claim for unpaid accrued vacation time, finding that the putative class claim satisfied the requirements for class certification under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. The Court emphasized that allowing the vacation pay claim to proceed as a class action would result in the most expeditious administration of the MFGI estate, especially since the Trustee had conceded liability for vacation pay. The MFGI Class Claimants were directed to file a motion for class certification as soon as practicable.

BankruptcyClass ActionWARN ActVacation Pay ClaimsClass CertificationRule 23Claims ObjectionSIPA LiquidationEmployee BenefitsBar Date
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Massena Central School District

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order that vacated an arbitration award concerning a custodian, Eric Fetterly. Fetterly, an employee of the petitioner and a member of the respondent union, filed three grievances after an on-the-job injury, disputing his vacation credits, sick leave, and a disciplinary letter. The arbitrator found in Fetterly's favor on all three issues. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, finding the arbitrator exceeded his authority. The appellate court modified the Supreme Court's order, reversing its decision to vacate the arbitrator's determinations on grievances two and three, while affirming the vacatur of the first grievance.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceVacation CreditsSick LeaveDisciplinary ActionArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation LeavePublic Policy
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hand v. Chairman of the Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner, a licensed chiropractor, initiated a proceeding to vacate two arbitration awards concerning bills for treating Boris Mustac and Dawn Heffran. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted the petition to vacate the awards, finding the Chiropractic Practice Committee improperly composed due to a vacancy. However, the Chairman, Workers’ Compensation Board, and State Insurance Fund appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, determining that a vacancy on the Committee did not invalidate its decisions and that the Mustac award was properly issued. Consequently, the petition to vacate the arbitration awards was denied, with the award for Boris Mustac being confirmed and the Heffran matter dismissed as withdrawn.

Arbitration AwardChiropractic TreatmentWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewVacate AwardConfirm AwardCommittee CompositionStatutory InterpretationInsurance CarrierMedical Billing Dispute
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finley v. Manhattan Developmental Center

The petitioner, a mental hygiene therapy aide, was dismissed for failing to report client abuse. An arbitrator found the charges proven and upheld the dismissal. The Supreme Court vacated the dismissal portion of the arbitration award, deeming the punishment disproportionate and remanding the issue of punishment to the arbitrator for further consideration, without adequately considering the arbitrator's reasoning process. This appellate court unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, confirming the original arbitration award and denying the petition to vacate. The court stated that the arbitrator's omission to discuss the petitioner's employment history did not render the decision defective, as there was no evidence that any factors were overlooked that the petitioner had an opportunity to advance. Furthermore, CPLR 7511 (b) does not provide grounds to vacate an arbitration award for the consideration of factors thought to be overlooked.

ArbitrationDismissalEmploymentClient AbuseCollective BargainingAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewDue ProcessPunishmentArbitrator Discretion
References
1
Case No. CPL article 440 motion
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

People v. G.M.

Defendant G.M. moved to vacate six convictions—two for prostitution, two for criminal trespass, and two for drug possession—which occurred between September 1997 and January 1998. G.M. contended she was a victim of human trafficking and severe domestic abuse by her husband, D.S., who forced her into illegal activities under threat of violence. The New York State Legislature amended Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 in August 2010, allowing sex trafficking victims to vacate prostitution-related convictions. The Queens County District Attorney's Office consented to G.M.'s motion for all six convictions, citing her truthful affidavit and the unique circumstances. On April 1, 2011, the court granted the motion, vacating all judgments of conviction and dismissing the accusatory instruments, recognizing G.M.'s status as a trafficking victim, which was also recognized by a federal agency that granted her a 'T Visa'.

Human TraffickingSex TraffickingVacatur of ConvictionsCriminal Procedure Law § 440.10Prostitution OffensesCriminal TrespassDrug PossessionDomestic ViolenceCoercionAbuse
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 1,337 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