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

Lee Myles Associates Corp. v. Abrams

The petitioners, Lee Myles Associates Corporation and Charles George, filed a CPLR article 78 petition seeking to vacate a determination by the Attorney-General of the State of New York dated June 10, 1982. The Attorney-General had refused to register Lee Myles's franchise offering prospectus due to Charles George's prior felony conviction. Petitioners contended this rejection was arbitrary and violated their due process rights. The court found that the petitioners were denied procedural due process, specifically the opportunity for a full hearing, to confront witnesses, and to subpoena witnesses. Consequently, the court granted the petition to the extent of vacating the Attorney-General's determination and ordered a new de novo hearing on the franchise application, while denying the request for interim relief.

Procedural Due ProcessFranchise Sales ActGeneral Business LawFelony ConvictionAdministrative HearingArticle 78 PetitionDe Novo HearingFranchise RegistrationDue Process RightsProperty Rights
References
20
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00322 [190 AD3d 876]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 20, 2021

State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co. v. Klein

The plaintiff, State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co., initiated a subrogation action to recoup damages paid to its insureds following a vehicle accident. The case involved a third-party action where defendants/third-party plaintiffs Traci B. Klein and Marie A. Michel sought indemnification from Recco Health Corporation et al., arguing Recco was Michel's employer under the Consumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP) and therefore vicariously liable. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, granted Recco's motion for summary judgment, concluding Michel was not their employee for vicarious liability purposes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, holding that CDPAP regulations do not grant fiscal intermediaries control over caregivers' methods, a key factor in determining an employer-employee relationship for vicarious liability.

SubrogationVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorSummary JudgmentMedicaid ProgramConsumer Directed Personal Assistance Program (CDPAP)Fiscal IntermediaryEmployer-Employee RelationshipAppellate DivisionProperty Damage
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DeLeon v. Gurda Farms, Inc. (In Re Gurda Farms, Inc.)

This case involves an appeal by thirteen migrant seasonal farmworkers (plaintiffs-appellants), who are creditors of defendants-bankrupts Gurda Farms, Inc. and Stanley Gurda. The farmworkers challenged a Bankruptcy Court order that denied their request to proceed in forma pauperis (without payment of fees) in their appeal. The plaintiffs had previously obtained a judgment against the defendants under the Farm Labor Contractor Registration Act of 1963 and were prosecuting that action in forma pauperis when the defendants filed for bankruptcy, automatically staying the civil suit. The core legal question is whether 28 U.S.C. § 1915(a), which allows individuals to proceed in forma pauperis, is applicable to creditors appealing a bankruptcy court's decision, especially given the Supreme Court's ruling in United States v. Kras. The District Court distinguished this case from Kras, noting the plaintiffs' pre-existing in forma pauperis status and the minimal impact on the bankruptcy system's self-supporting goal. The court granted the plaintiffs leave to prosecute this appeal in forma pauperis.

In Forma PauperisBankruptcy AppealCreditor RightsFarm Labor Contractor Registration ActStatutory InterpretationConstitutional LawDue ProcessEqual ProtectionReferees' Salary ActBankruptcy Fees
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Glessing

Plaintiff William Lee initiated a lawsuit against Charles Glessing and Palantine Nursing Home, alleging gender and disability discrimination under Title VII, ADA, and New York State Human Rights Law, along with claims of retaliation. Lee, a physical therapist, contended he endured sexual harassment from female co-workers and was wrongfully terminated due to his gender, a mental disability, and in response to his complaints. Defendants sought summary judgment, asserting non-discriminatory termination reasons, arguing Lee was an independent contractor, and disputing the existence of a hostile work environment. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, identifying unresolved factual disputes regarding the termination's true cause, Lee's employment status, and the claims of a hostile work environment and employer liability. Additionally, plaintiff's ADA claims were dismissed by stipulation of the parties.

Employment DiscriminationGender DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary Judgment MotionTitle VIIAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)New York Human Rights Law
References
42
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01944 [226 AD3d 836]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Ragusa v. Drazie's Farm II, LLC

The plaintiff, Matthew Ragusa, appealed an order denying his cross-motion to amend the complaint to add Drazie's Farm, LLC as a defendant and granting summary judgment to Drazie's Farm II, LLC on a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision. The court found that the relation-back doctrine did not apply because Drazie's Farm II, LLC and Drazie's Farm, LLC were separate entities with potentially different defenses, thus not united in interest. Furthermore, Drazie's Farm II, LLC established that it did not own the property where the accident occurred and therefore could not be held liable under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Personal injuryLabor Law § 240 (1)A-frame ladderfall from heightpremises liabilityrelation-back doctrinesummary judgmentlimited liability companyproperty ownershipadjoining properties
References
10
Case No. ADJ11418472 (MF); ADJ11418473
Regular
Aug 21, 2025

INGRIS VIRULA vs. WING LEE FARM CORPORATION, REDWOOD FIRE AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANY

The Petition for Reconsideration concerning a decision issued on June 20, 2025, was withdrawn by the petitioner. Consequently, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has ordered that the petition be dismissed. This dismissal is based on the withdrawal, leading to the formal order of dismissal.

Petition for ReconsiderationWithdrawn PetitionDismissed OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWing Lee Farm CorporationRedwood Fire and Casualty Insurance CompanyBerkshire Hathaway Homestate CompaniesIngris VirulaVan Nuys District OfficeAdjudication Numbers
References
0
Case No. Dkt.# 9
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Barnhart

Johnny Lee, acting pro se, sought judicial review under 42 U.S.C. § 405(g) and § 1383(c) of the Commissioner of Social Security's final decision that he was not disabled and thus ineligible for SSDI or SSI benefits. After an initial denial, a reversal and remand by the court, and a second hearing before ALJ John Costello which again denied benefits, Lee filed this action. The Commissioner moved for judgment on the pleadings, which the court granted. The court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, finding substantial evidence in the administrative record. The court concluded that Lee's subjective complaints of chronic back and knee pain were not supported by objective medical evidence from multiple physicians, and the ALJ's credibility findings were reasonable.

Social Security DisabilitySupplemental Security IncomeSSDIChronic Back PainKnee PainMedical EvidenceResidual Functional CapacitySedentary WorkCredibility DeterminationAdministrative Law Judge
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Admiral Insurance v. State Farm Fire & Casualty Co.

The case involves an insurance dispute between Admiral Insurance Company and P&K (plaintiffs) and State Farm (defendant) concerning coverage for an underlying personal injury lawsuit. P&K, a contractor, was supposed to be covered as an additional insured under a State Farm policy through its subcontractor, Shahid Enterprises. After a Shahid employee was injured, triggering a lawsuit against P&K, Admiral sought defense and indemnification from State Farm, which disclaimed coverage due to late notice. The Supreme Court denied both parties' motions for summary judgment, finding that Insurance Law § 3420 (d) applied but a factual dispute existed regarding the timeliness of State Farm's disclaimer. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that triable issues of fact remained as to whether Admiral's failure to provide information contributed to State Farm's delay in disclaiming coverage.

Insurance disputeDisclaimer of coverageLate noticeAdditional insuredSummary judgmentTriable issues of factInsurance Law § 3420 (d)Co-primary insurerIndemnificationDeclaratory judgment
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis Family Farm, Inc. v. New York State Adirondack Park Agency

Lewis Family Farm (Lewis Farm) sought to build housing for farm workers in Essex County, within the Adirondack Park. The Adirondack Park Agency (APA) asserted jurisdiction, issued a cease and desist order, and levied a $50,000 civil penalty, claiming the structures were 'single family dwellings' requiring a permit. Lewis Farm challenged this, contending the housing constituted 'agricultural use structures' exempt from APA jurisdiction under the Adirondack Park Agency Act and the Wild, Scenic and Recreational Rivers System Act. The Supreme Court annulled the APA's determination, agreeing with Lewis Farm. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that farmworker housing directly and customarily associated with agricultural use falls under the 'agricultural use structure' exemption, thus not requiring an APA permit.

Land UseAdirondack Park Agency ActAgricultural Use StructuresSingle Family DwellingsPermit RequirementsStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78Farmworker HousingZoning ExemptionEnvironmental Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Champagne v. State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance

Selma Champagne appealed an order denying her motion for summary judgment and granting cross-motions by State Farm and John L. Homan. The case originated from a 1987 motor vehicle accident where Homan allegedly struck Samuel Champagne, who later settled with State Farm for the policy limit. Selma, Samuel's wife, then sought a declaratory judgment that State Farm was obligated to defend and indemnify Homan in her separate suit for loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to both defendants. The appellate court modified the order, denying Homan's cross-motion, ruling that Selma's loss of consortium claim remained viable despite her husband's settlement as she was not a party to it. However, the court affirmed the summary judgment for State Farm, holding that State Farm had fulfilled its policy obligations by paying the "per person" bodily injury limit to Samuel, as loss of consortium damages are derivative and do not constitute a separate "bodily injury" under the insurance policy.

Loss of ConsortiumMotor Vehicle AccidentDeclaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentInsurance Policy LimitsBodily InjuryDerivative ClaimSettlementAppellate ReviewPolicy Interpretation
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 3,225 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