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

Alloy Briquetting Corp. v. Niagara Vest, Inc.

Plaintiff sued defendants Niagara Vest and Union Carbide under various federal and state law theories, including CERCLA, to recover costs related to the cleanup of chemical contamination at a property in Niagara Falls, New York. The plaintiff sought recovery for response costs, contribution, common law restitution, a declaratory judgment, common law indemnity, and alleged fraud against Niagara Vest. Defendants moved to dismiss claims related to attorney fees, the entire contribution claim, the declaratory relief claim, and to strike references to future response costs. The court granted the dismissal of claims seeking attorney fees for private parties under both CERCLA and New York State law. Motions regarding declaratory judgment and contribution claims were partially granted and partially denied, differentiating between past and future response costs, with claims for future costs largely dismissed due to the plaintiff's lack of standing after eviction from the site.

CERCLAEnvironmental ContaminationHazardous SubstancesResponse CostsAttorney FeesLitigation CostsContribution ClaimsDeclaratory JudgmentMotion to DismissPrivate Party Litigation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The court addressed two consolidated CPLR Article 78 proceedings concerning whether petitioners' dismissal from the Department of Sanitation was effective prior to the vesting of their deferred retirement allowances. Petitioners, Waldeck and Barbaro, applied for the allowance, which vests if an employee is not dismissed within 30 days of application. Respondents, the Department of Sanitation and New York City Employees’ Retirement System, contended that petitioners were dismissed before the vesting date. The court found discrepancies in the dismissal documentation, a lack of explanation from a key witness (Commissioner Sexton), and insufficient proof that the dismissal notices were properly served according to Civil Service Law § 76. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissals were not effective by the critical date, entitling petitioners to their vested retirement allowances.

Deferred Retirement AllowanceAdministrative DismissalCPLR Article 78Vested RightsDue ProcessService of NoticeCivil Service LawPublic EmployeesDepartment of SanitationNew York City Employees’ Retirement System
References
0
Case No. No. 6
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Danny Donohue v. Andrew M. Cuomo

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two certified questions from the Second Circuit regarding the vesting of post-retirement health insurance benefits under New York law. The court declined to adopt "Yard-Man-type inferences" which favor vested retiree benefits, finding them inconsistent with New York's established contract interpretation principles. The decision reaffirmed that contractual rights and obligations generally do not survive beyond the termination of a collective bargaining agreement unless expressly stated. Consequently, the court held that the 2007-2011 CBA provisions did not create a vested right to lifetime fixed premium contributions. The court also clarified that its prior ruling in Kolbe v Tibbetts did not implicitly adopt such inferences.

Collective bargaining agreementRetiree health benefitsVesting rightsContract interpretationNew York lawYard-Man inferencesM&G Polymers v. TackettCNH Industrial v. ReeseCivil Service LawJudicial review
References
72
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kolbe v. Tibbetts

This case examines whether collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) conferred a vested right upon plaintiff retirees to maintain the same health insurance coverage they had at retirement. The court held that the contracts establish a vested right to a continuation of the same health coverage until age 70, and that the New York Insurance Moratorium Law does not abrogate these contractual rights. However, due to factual issues regarding the intended scope of the plaintiffs' right, particularly concerning the meaning of 'coverage' (identical versus equivalent benefits and costs), the case is remitted for further factual development to determine if increased co-pays for prescription drugs constitute a breach of contract.

Retiree Health BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementsVested RightsContract InterpretationHealth Insurance Co-paysFlexible Spending AccountsInsurance Moratorium LawBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morales v. Plaxall, Inc.

Nazario Morales, a former employee of Plaxall, Inc., sued to recover employment benefits under the defendant's profit sharing plan, established under ERISA. Morales was discharged in 1977 after admitting to personal use of company materials. The central issue was the timing of benefit distribution, specifically whether a 1976 amendment allowing early payment upon termination of employment was legally effective despite later deletion. The court determined that the 1976 amended plan was effective at the time of Morales's termination, entitling him to early payment of vested benefits. The court awarded Morales his vested benefits and $5,600 in attorney's fees and costs, and also awarded Plaxall $200 on its counterclaim for misappropriation.

ERISAProfit Sharing PlanEmployee BenefitsVested RightsPlan AmendmentsTermination of EmploymentEarly PaymentAttorney's FeesMisappropriationUnilateral Contract
References
9
Case No. 02 Civ.0032 VM
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2004

Campanella v. MASON TENDERS'DIST. COUNCIL PENSION

The Campanella brothers, retired participants, sued the Mason Tenders' District Council Pension Plan and its Board of Trustees, alleging multiple ERISA violations regarding pension benefit accrual, vesting standards, and credit for workers' compensation. They challenged the Plan's accrual ranges, anti-backloading provisions, and the policy regarding service credit during disability. The defendants filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the defendants' motion, finding that the Plan adhered to ERISA requirements on all substantive points, including minimum accrual standards and vesting. Additionally, claims for interest on delayed benefits and penalties against the Trustees for document production were denied, with the court concluding that no unreasonable delay or bad faith was demonstrated.

ERISAPension BenefitsDisability PensionAccrued BenefitsVesting StandardsStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationFiduciary DutyPlan Administration
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Majewski v. Broadalbin-Perth Central School District

Plaintiff Thomas Majewski, injured while employed by Adirondack Mechanical Corporation, initiated a suit against Broadalbin-Perth Central School District. The School District subsequently filed a third-party action against Adirondack for contribution or indemnification. Following a 1996 amendment to Workers’ Compensation Law § 11, which restricted such third-party actions to cases involving "grave injury," Adirondack moved for summary judgment. The court addressed the retroactivity of the amendment, analyzing whether the School District possessed a vested right to its cause of action. The court concluded that the right to contribution or indemnification is not a vested right precluding retroactive application. It found that the legislative intent, particularly evidenced by the audit provisions in section 88 of the Act, mandated the amendment's application to pending claims. Consequently, Adirondack's motion for summary judgment was granted, barring the third-party action.

Workers' Compensation LawThird-Party ActionsRetroactive Application of LawStatutory InterpretationGrave InjurySummary JudgmentIndemnificationContributionLegislative IntentVested Rights
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers v. Pension Fund, Local One Amalgamated Lithographers of America

The plaintiff, Mr. Myers, challenged the defendant Pension Fund's decision to provide him with a withdrawal benefit instead of a monthly pension. Myers had left the lithographic industry in 1973 and opted for a vested pension, but the Fund later denied his monthly pension, alleging he returned to the industry without proper notification or resuming contributions. Myers' claims of violations under the Sherman Antitrust Act and New York General Business Law were dismissed, with the latter preempted by ERISA. The court also found that the specific ERISA vesting provisions cited by Myers did not apply to the Fund. However, because new affidavits presented by Myers indicated that one of his employers, ASL, might not be part of the lithographic industry—evidence not considered by the Fund's Trustees—the court remanded the case. The Fund is directed to re-evaluate Myers' eligibility based on whether ASL or Towanda (another employer) are indeed part of the lithographic industry.

ERISAPension BenefitsVesting ProvisionsSummary JudgmentRemandEmployee BenefitsAntitrust LawsState Law PreemptionLithographic IndustryWithdrawal Benefits
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 1989

Kinek v. Gulf & Western, Inc.

The Kinek plaintiffs and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation (PBGC) sued Gulf & Western, Inc. (G&W) and its pension plan for alleged violations of a collectively-bargained pension agreement and ERISA, stemming from a 'spin-off' where G&W transferred assets and liabilities to Horsehead Industries' pension plan. Plaintiffs argued G&W failed to fully fund vested pension benefits upon this transfer, as contractually required by the G&W Plan's sections 3.1 and 10.2. The court confirmed plaintiffs' standing and applied a de novo standard of review. It ruled that the G&W Plan's provisions, when read together, obligated G&W to provide full funding for vested benefits during an asset transfer. Consequently, the court denied G&W's motion for summary judgment and granted the Kinek plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment, holding G&W liable.

ERISALMRAPension PlanEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentContract DisputePension FundingAsset TransferSpin-offVested Benefits
References
0
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07922
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2018

Matter of DeVera v. Elia

The case concerns the oversight authority for charter school prekindergarten programs under New York's Statewide Universal Full-Day Prekindergarten Program (Education Law § 3602-ee). Petitioners, including Success Academy and parents, challenged the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) contractual requirements, arguing that Education Law § 3602-ee (12) vests exclusive oversight responsibility in the charter entity. The Commissioner of Education initially sided with the DOE, allowing for shared oversight, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding that the "all" in subdivision (12) grants full responsibility to the charter entity. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that the statutory language is unambiguous and vests exclusive oversight authority for charter school prekindergarten programs in the charter entity, thereby divesting the school district of authority to set curricular or programmatic requirements. The dissent argued that this interpretation misreads the statute and undermines the accountability framework intended by the legislature for universal pre-kindergarten programs.

Charter SchoolsPrekindergarten ProgramsEducation LawStatutory InterpretationOversight AuthoritySchool DistrictsNew York Court of AppealsUniversal Pre-K LawLegislative IntentAppellate Review
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 106 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