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. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Blanksteen v. New York Mercantile Exchange

Plaintiff Goldie Blanksteen, a member of the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) through her seat ownership, sought a preliminary injunction to halt a forthcoming election. She contested a NYMEX rule that mandates members to relinquish their voting rights when leasing their final seat, a practice she claims violates the Sherman Act and New York Not-For-Profit Corporation Law. Blanksteen argued that this policy constitutes illegal anticompetitive conduct and causes her irreparable harm. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, citing Blanksteen's significant delay in filing the action and the availability of a statutory remedy under N-PCL § 618. Furthermore, the Court determined that Blanksteen failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, concluding that the NYMEX rule was subject to a 'rule of reason' analysis and served to promote competitiveness by empowering active traders.

Preliminary InjunctionSherman ActAntitrust LawGroup BoycottRule of ReasonNew York Mercantile ExchangeElection DisputeMembership RightsNot-For-Profit Corporation LawIrreparable Harm
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2003

Yanulavich v. Appeals Board of Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his CPLR article 78 proceeding, which challenged the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) revocation of his driver's license. The revocation stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, who reported vision issues due to diabetes, struck a flag person. After failing initial vision tests and subsequently passing with corrective lenses, the petitioner failed a road test, leading to the license revocation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the DMV had reasonable grounds, based on the accident, the petitioner's statement, and his physician's report, to require a road test, thus supporting the revocation.

driver's licenselicense revocationvision impairmentdiabetesroad test failureadministrative appealCPLR Article 78Vehicle and Traffic Lawreasonable groundsmotor vehicle accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chau v. United States Securities & Exchange Commission

This case involves Wing F. Chau and Harding Advisory LLC (plaintiffs) seeking to enjoin an administrative proceeding initiated by the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC). Plaintiffs argue that the SEC's choice of an administrative forum, instead of a federal district court, violates their due process and equal protection rights. The court, applying the Thunder Basin and Free Enterprise Fund factors, concludes it lacks subject matter jurisdiction to interrupt the ongoing agency adjudication. The court found that SEC adjudication would not foreclose meaningful judicial review, the claims were not wholly collateral to the SEC proceeding, and the SEC was competent to consider the fairness of its proceedings and related constitutional claims in the first instance. Therefore, the court denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the SEC's motion to dismiss the action.

Securities RegulationAdministrative LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionMotion to DismissSEC EnforcementCollateralized Debt Obligations (CDOs)Investment Advisors Act
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Tavella

The Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) moved for default judgment against eight defendants involved in a penny-stock scheme related to Biozoom. The defendants, including Magdalena Tavella and others, were accused of making false representations to broker-dealers and illegally selling unregistered shares. The court found the defendants liable for violating Section 5 of the 1933 Act. A permanent injunction was issued, and disgorgement of illegal proceeds was ordered. However, the final entry of judgment was deferred to allow the SEC to provide further information on prejudgment interest. Civil penalties of $160,000 were imposed on each defendant, lower than the maximum sought by the SEC.

Securities FraudDefault JudgmentPenny Stock SchemeUnregistered SecuritiesSection 5 ViolationAsset FreezeDisgorgementPrejudgment InterestCivil PenaltiesMarket Manipulation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Herrera

This case concerns motions filed by Capital One Auto Finance and Marco Herrera in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. Capital One sought relief from the automatic stay, while the Debtor, Marco Herrera, cross-moved to redeem his 2006 Yukon Denali under 11 U.S.C. § 722. The central issue revolved around determining the appropriate replacement value of the vehicle for redemption. The Debtor's proposed valuation of $6,425, supported by a Kelley Blue Book report for a different vehicle model, was rejected by the Court. The Court considered Capital One's expert appraisal and determined the replacement value to be $17,000. Additionally, the Court ruled that the automatic stay terminated due to the Debtor's failure to timely perform his stated intention to redeem, but clarified that this did not extinguish his underlying right to redeem the vehicle.

BankruptcyChapter 7Automatic StayRedemptionVehicle ValuationSecured ClaimReplacement ValueDebtor's Statement of IntentionTimelinessEvidentiary Hearing
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 2005

Krause v. Forex Exchange Market, Inc.

Plaintiffs, including clients of Private Investors Peru (PIP) and Copernic, Inc., alleged they were defrauded in a foreign currency investment scheme by multiple defendants, losing all their investments. The primary defendant, Forex Capital Markets, LLC (FXCM), a registered futures commission merchant with whom plaintiffs traded, moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and to dismiss cross-claims. The court granted FXCM's motion, ruling that the Commodity Exchange Act (CEA) claims against FXCM failed because the off-exchange foreign currency contracts were exempt from the specific CEA provisions cited, and alienage diversity jurisdiction was lacking as aliens were on both sides of the dispute. Furthermore, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over most state law claims against FXCM due to predominance of state issues and dismissed the remaining aiding and abetting claims for insufficient pleading of fraudulent intent. Consequently, the complaint and the first cross-claim against FXCM were dismissed, with leave for cross-claimants to amend.

FraudInvestment SchemeForeign Currency TradingCommodity Exchange Act (CEA)Subject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionAlienage JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionDismissal of ComplaintAiding and Abetting
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The petitioner's driver's license was revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles in 2002 for an incident in 2001, despite having previously received a restricted and then a full license for the same event. The court found that the DMV acted arbitrarily and capriciously by delaying the revocation and effectively punishing the petitioner twice. The court also clarified the interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law sections regarding the availability of restricted use licenses. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate restoration of the petitioner's driver's license.

Driver's License RevocationAdministrative DelayArbitrary and Capricious ActionRestricted Use LicenseVehicle and Traffic LawDouble PunishmentJudicial ReviewMotor Vehicle AccidentInsurance LapseAdministrative Error
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 840 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