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

Stuhmer & Co. v. Korman

This case addresses a motion by defendants to vacate a stay contained within an order to show cause for an injunction pendente lite. The defendants argued that Section 882 of the Civil Practice Act, as amended in 1930, was not complied with. The court clarifies that the amended statute requires notice for temporary injunctions, but the character and extent of such notice are at the court's discretion, and any notice deemed sufficient by the court is compliant. The court further clarifies that the notice was not jurisdictionally defective merely because the summons and complaint had not been served at the time of the notice, as jurisdiction is provisional upon subsequent service. Therefore, the motion to vacate the stay was denied.

Injunction Pendente LiteStay OrderCivil Practice ActStatutory InterpretationJurisdictionNotice RequirementMotion PracticeTemporary InjunctionsNew York Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Freilich v. Fleischer

This order affirms the denial of the defendant's motion to vacate a temporary injunction. The temporary injunction was originally granted on May 27, 1923. The court unanimously affirmed the denial, awarding twenty dollars in costs and disbursements, without providing a written opinion. The panel included Justices Martin, P. J., Merrell, McAvoy, O’Malley, and Untermyer, JJ.

temporary injunctionmotion to vacateappellate decisionaffirmedcosts and disbursementsno opinionjudicial paneldenial of motioncivil procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Aetna Life & Casualty Co. v. McGregor

The Supreme Court erred in granting the plaintiff a permanent injunction that barred the defendant from proceeding before the Workers’ Compensation Board. Despite the Board ordering the defendant's case reopened, the plaintiff had only sought a preliminary injunction. A critical prerequisite for a preliminary injunction, irreparable injury, was not demonstrated by the plaintiff. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order of the Supreme Court. The injunction against the defendant was unanimously vacated.

InjunctionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable InjuryWorkers' Compensation BoardReversedVacatedAppellate ReviewCPLR 6312
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Diabo v. Delisle

Shaynah J. Diabo (mother) initiated a federal action under the International Child Abduction Remedies Act (ICARA) and the Hague Convention seeking the return of her minor child from the child's father and paternal grandparents. A previous April 2006 Order mandated the child's return to the mother in Canada and prohibited parties from seeking further custody orders. When the father subsequently filed a custody proceeding in Onondaga County Family Court, the mother sought a permanent injunction in federal court. The court granted the permanent injunction, finding that the state court action was barred by the Anti-Injunction Act's 'in aid of jurisdiction' and 'relitigation' exceptions. The federal court held that its retained jurisdiction and prior judgment on the child's best interest and habitual residence in Canada precluded relitigation of these issues in state court. The court also dismissed George M. Raus as a respondent and vacated an earlier Access Agreement, while directing the father to arrange visitation through a mediation center in Canada.

Child AbductionICARAHague ConventionPermanent InjunctionAnti-Injunction ActRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelFederal JurisdictionState Court InterferenceFamily Law
References
20
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 06054
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2019

Wilder v. Fresenius Med. Care Holdings, Inc.

Plaintiff Nicholas Wilder, suffering from end-stage renal disorder, sued Fresenius Medical Care Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiary, Avantus Renal Therapy New York LLC, after they notified him that his dialysis care would be terminated due to disruptive behavior. Wilder sought an injunction to prevent the termination of his life-sustaining dialysis treatment. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied his request for an injunction and vacated a previously granted temporary restraining order (TRO). The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's order, reversing the denial of the injunction and vacating of the TRO, reinstating the TRO pending a hearing on Wilder's injunction request. The appellate court found that the motion court abused its discretion by vacating the TRO and not holding a hearing on the preliminary injunction, given the substantial factual disputes regarding Wilder's behavior and the defendants' compliance with federal regulations for patient discharge. However, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Wilder's request to proceed anonymously and seal records.

Dialysis TreatmentPatient DischargeTemporary Restraining OrderPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDisruptive Patient BehaviorFederal RegulationsRight to CareAppellate ReviewSealing Records
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pocketbook Workers Union, Local 1 v. Centra Leather Goods Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of an arbitration award, initiated by a motion to confirm and a cross-motion to vacate the award. The underlying dispute concerned an employer's alleged relocation of its plant from New York City to Oklahoma. The arbitrator issued an award enjoining the employer from moving, mandating the return of shipped machinery, and providing for lost wages. The court addressed multiple objections, including procedural issues, arbitrator impartiality, the scope of equitable relief in arbitration, and jurisdictional challenges. While most objections were dismissed, the court expressed reservations about enforcing the mandatory injunction for machinery return due to insufficient proof. Ultimately, the motion to confirm the arbitration award was granted, and the cross-motion to vacate was denied, with a directive to settle the judgment as indicated.

ArbitrationEquitable ReliefInjunctionLabor DisputeContract InterpretationJudicial ReviewBankruptcy ActLabor Management Relations ActArbitrator ImpartialityMandatory Injunction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smethurst v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 786

The court reversed an order that had granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the complaint. The temporary injunction was vacated, and the complaint was dismissed. The decision granted the plaintiff leave to serve an amended complaint within ten days. The court determined that the case arose from a 'labor dispute' under section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act and that the initial complaint did not present sufficient facts for a cause of action.

InjunctionLabor DisputeCivil Practice ActComplaint DismissedReversalMotionPendente LiteVacated InjunctionAmended ComplaintProcedural Ruling
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zorn v. Local 662, Salesmen & Poultry Workers Union

This case involves a motion for a temporary injunction filed by Zorn’s Poultry Farms against Local 662, seeking to halt picketing activities. The plaintiff, Peter Zorn, claimed the picketing began after he refused the union's request for recognition, asserting his 17 employees were not union members. The defendants countered that their actions were peaceful and aimed at organizing employees. Given the plaintiff's intention to approach the National Labor Relations Board, the court inferred interstate commerce involvement. Citing established precedent (Dooley v. Anton), the court concluded that state courts should defer jurisdiction to the NLRB in matters concerning unfair labor practices. Consequently, the court denied the injunctive relief and vacated the previously issued stay.

InjunctionPicketingLabor DisputeUnion OrganizingNLRB JurisdictionState Court JurisdictionFederal PreemptionUnfair Labor PracticesInterstate CommerceCollective Bargaining
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 22, 2008

Grossman v. Ilowitz

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated May 22, 2008. The appellants, Raphael Grossman and Israel Grossman, challenged an arbitration award from August 4, 2005, which awarded Israel Grossman $500,000 from Yaakov Aaron Ilowitz and Israel Chaim Ilowitz, and an arbitration award dated May 29, 2007, which vacated the $500,000 award due to a violation of an injunction. The Supreme Court had granted the motion of Yaakov Aaron Ilowitz and Israel Chaim Ilowitz to vacate an earlier order and judgment confirming the initial arbitration award and denied the appellants' motion to compel compliance. The court also granted the motion to confirm the May 29, 2007, arbitration award and denied the appellants' motion to vacate it. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding that the arbitrators did not exceed their powers in granting injunctive relief or in enforcing it, which led to the forfeiture of the monetary award. The court also found that the Supreme Court properly vacated the initial order and judgment confirming the monetary award.

Arbitration AwardInjunctive ReliefVacated AwardMonetary AwardAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 75Arbitrator PowersPublic Policy ExceptionArbitration AgreementKings County Supreme Court
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,080 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