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

Coca-Cola Bottling Co. v. Board of Estimate

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding initiated by The Coca-Cola Bottling Company of New York, Inc. against the Board of Estimate of the City of New York and other city entities, along with Con-Agg Recycling Corp. Coca-Cola challenged the Board of Estimate's approval of Con-Agg's concrete recycling business in The Bronx and an amendment to the urban renewal plan, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The core issue was whether the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) or the Board of Estimate was the proper 'lead agency' responsible for assessing the environmental impact. The trial court and Appellate Division found that DEP's issuance of a conditional negative declaration, rather than the Board of Estimate making the final environmental policy decision, violated SEQRA. The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding that the 'lead agency' with principal responsibility for approving an action must also determine its significant environmental effect, and Mayoral Executive Order No. 91 was invalidly applied to the extent it diminished this responsibility.

Environmental ReviewSEQRALead AgencyConditional Negative DeclarationUrban Renewal PlanArticle 78 ProceedingGovernmental Decision MakingEnvironmental Impact StatementPolicy DecisionMayoral Executive Order No. 91
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sutton Area Community v. Board of Estimate

This case addresses a challenge by petitioners against the Board of Estimate's approval of a major private development in Manhattan. The core issue revolves around a last-minute change in the designated sewage treatment plant from Ward's Island to Newtown Creek, the latter lacking secondary treatment and operating over capacity. The court found that this eleventh-hour correction, three days before the Board's vote, deprived the public and relevant agencies of a meaningful opportunity to review and comment on the significant environmental impacts related to sewage disposal. Citing violations of the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), the court emphasized the necessity of strict compliance with environmental review procedures. Consequently, the judgment confirming the Board of Estimate's determination was reversed, and the Board's approval of the project was nullified.

Environmental LawSEQRASewage DisposalAdministrative Agency ActionPublic ParticipationEnvironmental Impact StatementJudicial Review of Agency DecisionsUrban PlanningRegulatory ComplianceWater Pollution
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

McCaffrey v. Board of Estimate

The petitioners challenged a determination by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, dated January 22, 1987, which approved a site in Long Island City for a residential shelter for homeless men. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the respondents complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The respondents had identified environmental concerns, taken a 'hard look,' and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for their determination. The petitioners' argument that ULURP procedures needed to be redone due to an expired lease option was deemed without merit.

Environmental ReviewHomeless ShelterSite ApprovalLand UseCPLR Article 78SEQRAULURPGovernment DecisionAppellate CourtProcedural Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 1996

In Re Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc.

Stuart L. Kreisler, the debtor's former chief executive officer, moved to have his claim against Ralph Lauren Womenswear, Inc. (RLW) estimated for voting purposes in RLW's plan of reorganization. Kreisler argued most of his claim, arising from postpetition termination, was an administrative expense, with a smaller unsecured claim. The debtor, RLW, denied any claim. Chief Judge Tina L. Brozman conducted an evidentiary hearing to estimate the claim due to time constraints before the confirmation hearing. The court determined that Kreisler's severance claim would likely be allowed as a postpetition quantum meruit administrative expense, estimating his prepetition unsecured claim related to unpaid bonus at $279,000, and the severance portion of his prepetition claim at zero. The ruling also addressed disputes concerning EBIT calculation for bonus determination and the allocation of the bonus between pre- and post-petition periods.

BankruptcyClaim EstimationSeverance PayAdministrative ExpenseQuantum MeruitEmployment AgreementDebtor ReorganizationPostpetition ClaimPrepetition ClaimBonus Calculation
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

In Re Continental Airlines Corp.

The case concerns Continental Airlines' motion to disallow or estimate at zero value the contract rejection damages claimed by the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA) following Continental's Chapter 11 bankruptcy filing. Continental had rejected its collective bargaining agreement with ALPA, and ALPA subsequently filed a $408 million claim for damages. The court asserted jurisdiction over the claim, rejecting ALPA's argument for deferral to a specialized tribunal. The court ultimately concluded that ALPA's claim for lost future wages lacked merit because the collective bargaining agreement did not guarantee employment and Continental would have ceased operations regardless. Additionally, the court found ALPA's damage calculations flawed as they extended beyond the contract's termination date. Consequently, the court disallowed ALPA's claim entirely and estimated its value at zero.

BankruptcyContract RejectionCollective Bargaining AgreementAirline IndustryLabor LawDamages EstimationBankruptcy JurisdictionArbitration DeferralRailway Labor ActChapter 11 Reorganization
References
90
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McKee v. Sithe Independence Power Partners

The Supreme Court's decision to extinguish the workers' compensation lien of Liberty Mutual Insurance Company on damages awarded to the petitioners in a third-party action was unanimously reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred by extinguishing the lien, as the future benefits for petitioner Thomas McKee, who was not receiving ongoing compensation for total disability or scheduled loss of use, could not be reliably quantified by actuarial or other means. Consequently, the present value of Liberty Mutual's estimated future compensation payments could not be ascertained. The matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to determine the exact amount recoverable by Liberty Mutual.

Workers' Compensation Lien LawThird-Party LitigationLien Extinguishment CriteriaFuture Benefit ValuationActuarial Quantification DifficultyTotal Disability RequirementScheduled Loss of Use ClaimAppellate Reversal GroundsRemittal for Further ProceedingsInsurance Carrier Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Village of Ilion v. County of Herkimer

Justice Abdus-Salaam dissents in part from the majority's decision, which held that a withdrawal payment owed by the plaintiff, Village of Herkimer, to the County for an Abandonment Plan should be discounted to present value. The dissent argues that the withdrawal payment was a lump sum contractual obligation, calculated based on an actuarial estimate of future workers' compensation claims, but represented an immediate present loss to the County when the plaintiff failed to make the payment on the due date of December 31, 2005. Therefore, the dissenting judge contends that the trial court correctly declined to discount the damages award to present value, as it remedied a present loss. The dissent also distinguishes this contract dispute from tort cases where future damages are typically discounted, and affirms the trial court's decision to apply interest from the date of the breach.

breach of contractdamagespresent value discountworkers' compensationlump sum paymentactuarial estimatedissenting opinioncontractual riskinterest calculationNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1992

Theresa M. C. v. Utilities Mutual Insurance

The case involves an appeal by Utilities Mutual Insurance Company regarding an order from the Surrogate’s Court, Nassau County. This order had extinguished the company's Workers’ Compensation lien and mandated a payment of $74,700 for legal fees related to a third-party action settlement. The third-party recovery stemmed from a legal malpractice action concerning the estate of Frederic C., whose widow received workers' compensation benefits. The appellate court found that the Surrogate's Court erred by failing to discount the total estimated future Workers' Compensation benefits to their present value when calculating the deficiency and the carrier's equitable share of legal expenses. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Surrogate's Court to determine the present value of future benefits using specified Workers' Compensation Law provisions and actuarial tables.

Workers' Compensation LienThird-Party ActionLegal MalpracticeSettlement ApportionmentLegal FeesPresent Value CalculationFuture BenefitsSurrogate's CourtAppellate ReversalRemittal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2002

Gerosa v. Savasta

The trustees of the Cement Masons Local 780 Pension Fund initiated a lawsuit against their actuary, Savasta and Company, Inc., alleging negligence. The actuary's erroneous report of an over-funded plan led the trustees to increase beneficiary benefits. Subsequently, the actuary disclosed its mistake, revealing the fund was actually underfunded and that critical data was lost. The lawsuit seeks to recover substantial damages inflicted upon the fund due to this actuarial malpractice. The court ultimately ruled that the dispute falls under exclusive federal jurisdiction, governed by ERISA, denying the defendant's motion to dismiss the federal claim and preempting the plaintiffs' state law claims.

Employee Benefit PlanActuarial NegligenceERISA PreemptionFederal JurisdictionMotion to DismissFiduciary DutyPension Fund ManagementUnderfundingOverfundingProfessional Malpractice
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2009

Rowan Companies, Inc. v. Wilmington Trust

Rowan Companies, Inc., a bare-boat charterer, appealed a summary judgment favoring Wilmington Trust Company, the Owner Trustee of the oil rig Rowan-Halifax. The dispute arose after Hurricane Rita destroyed the rig, and Owners invoked an appraisal provision, significantly increasing Rowan's payment for the loss. Rowan argued this post-loss appraisal was improper under the contract's "estimated residual value" clause, which it contended should be based on an initial, pre-loss estimate of $13.3 million. The appellate court agreed with Rowan, finding the contract unambiguous in requiring the estimated residual value to be determined at the lease's inception, not after the loss. The court reversed the trial court's judgment regarding the estimated residual value and remanded for recalculation of Rowan's obligation and the disposition of excess insurance funds, while affirming the stipulated attorneys' fees.

Contract InterpretationMaritime LawBareboat CharterEstimated Residual ValueFair Market ValueAppraisal ProcedureSummary JudgmentContractual ObligationHurricane RitaOil Rig
References
60
Showing 1-10 of 124 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