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
May 31, 2012

Windsor v. United States

This case addresses Edie Windsor's constitutional challenge to Section 3 of the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), which defined marriage exclusively as between one man and one woman. This definition required Windsor to pay federal estate tax on her late same-sex spouse's estate, a tax from which heterosexual couples were exempt. Windsor contended that Section 3 of DOMA violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The Bipartisan Legal Advisory Group (BLAG) intervened to defend DOMA's constitutionality. The Court denied BLAG's motion to dismiss and granted Windsor's motion for summary judgment, ruling that Section 3 of DOMA is unconstitutional as applied to Windsor and awarded her $353,053.00 plus interest and costs.

Constitutional LawEqual Protection ClauseFifth AmendmentDefense of Marriage ActDOMASame-sex MarriageFederal Estate TaxSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissJudicial Scrutiny
References
62
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crosby v. State

This case involves an appeal from a declaratory judgment action challenging the constitutionality of section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law. The plaintiff argued that the statute, which limits attorney fees in workers' compensation cases, violated her rights to privacy, freedom to contract, and equal protection. The Supreme Court at Special Term granted summary judgment to the defendant, the Workers’ Compensation Board, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the court affirmed the constitutionality of section 24, finding no violation of the plaintiff’s rights. The court reasoned that the right to privacy does not extend to attorney contracts, the freedom to contract is subject to reasonable police power limitations, and the fee limitations serve a rational legislative purpose of protecting claimants, thus satisfying equal protection requirements.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney FeesConstitutional LawRight to PrivacyFreedom to ContractEqual ProtectionSummary JudgmentAppealPolice PowerDeclaratory Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Novie

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Montebello's Tree Preservation and Landscape Maintenance Law, under which a defendant was charged for removing trees without a permit. The defendant challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds including ultra vires, uncompensated taking, due process violations, First Amendment infringement, and equal protection. The Justice Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Tree Law. The court found the law served legitimate governmental purposes, its fees were reasonable, and the defendant's taking and due process claims were not ripe due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Amendment and equal protection challenges were also rejected.

Tree Preservation LawConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLocal OrdinancesZoning Law
References
46
Case No. Motions Nos. 5 and 7
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1978

Rachlin v. Lewis

This case consolidates two CPLR article 78 proceedings challenging the Insurance Department's regulations on attorneys' fees in no-fault automobile insurance disputes and the constitutionality of certain sections of the Insurance Law. The petitioners sought to rescind 11 NYCRR 65.16 and declare Insurance Law section 671 et seq. unconstitutional. The court ruled that sections 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (ix), which prohibited attorneys from charging clients fees in excess of insurer-paid fees, and 11 NYCRR 65.16 (c) (7) (vii), concerning the regulation of disbursements, were invalid as they exceeded the scope of the enabling legislation. However, the court upheld the general fee schedule, finding a rational basis for its establishment by the Insurance Department.

Attorney's FeesNo-Fault InsuranceInsurance LawRegulatory ChallengeCPLR Article 78Administrative LawConstitutional LawDisbursementsArbitrationAutomobile Insurance
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Striley

This case addresses an employer's constitutional challenge to the New York State Unemployment Insurance Law concerning payments to striking workers and the application of the 'experience rating' method (Labor Law, § 581). The employer questioned the constitutionality under both Federal and State Constitutions. The court referenced W. H. H. Chamberlin, Inc., v. Andrews, which previously affirmed the constitutionality of taking money from employers for a general fund to pay strikers, and extended this principle to the 'experience rating' method. The decision emphasized that the method of assessment is a legislative matter and found no unreasonable or arbitrary act or constitutional violation in the change from a percentage ratio to 'experience rating'. The court affirmed the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Board.

Unemployment Insurance LawConstitutionalityExperience RatingStriking WorkersLabor LawLegislative IntentJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationEmployer ContributionsBenefit Payments
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Balsam Lake Anglers Club v. Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioner, Balsam Lake Anglers Club, initiated a hybrid proceeding challenging a Unit Management Plan (UMP) for the Balsam Lake Mountain Wild Forest area. The challenge focused on alleged violations of Article XIV of the New York State Constitution concerning timber removal, infringement on easements, and non-compliance with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court determined that the UMP did not violate the State Constitution or the petitioner's property rights as the timber cutting was deemed insubstantial and consistent with public use. However, the court found that the respondents, particularly the Department of Environmental Conservation, failed to adhere to SEQRA's procedural and substantive requirements by issuing a negative declaration without a comprehensive 'hard look' or a reasoned elaboration of environmental impacts. Consequently, the petition was granted in part regarding the SEQRA violation, and the matter was remitted to the Department of Environmental Conservation for further proceedings consistent with the ruling.

Environmental LawSEQRAUnit Management PlanForest PreserveArticle XIVNew York State ConstitutionTimber CuttingEasementsWild Forest LandsJudicial Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Ass'n of the United States, Inc. v. State

This appeal addresses the constitutional challenges brought by trade associations representing automobile manufacturers against New York's New Car Lemon Law alternative arbitration mechanism and its implementing regulations. Plaintiffs argued that General Business Law § 198-a (k) unconstitutionally deprived manufacturers of their right to a jury trial, access to Supreme Court, and constituted an improper delegation of judicial authority. The court ruled that the Lemon Law's remedies, particularly vehicle replacement, are equitable, thus preserving the right to a jury trial. It also upheld the arbitration mechanism as a reasonable alternative for dispute resolution, affirming its constitutionality regarding court access and delegation of authority. However, the court found one implementing regulation, 13 NYCRR 300.17 (c), invalid as it contravened the statute by precluding evidence of further repairs, effectively creating an irrebuttable presumption of liability.

Constitutional LawArbitrationLemon LawConsumer ProtectionGeneral Business LawRight to Jury TrialEquitable RemediesAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roman Catholic Diocese v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

Plaintiff, a self-insured employer, sought reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for payments made to claimants prior to 1994. The requests were denied as untimely under 2007 amendments to Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (8), which established new filing deadlines. Plaintiff challenged the constitutionality of these time limitations, asserting claims of actual and constructive trust, conversion, and unjust enrichment. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, and the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that plaintiff had no constitutionally protected property interest in the Fund and that due process was satisfied by the legislative enactment and its grace period.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimsConstitutional ChallengeDue ProcessProperty RightsLegislative AmendmentsStatute of LimitationsSelf-Insured EmployerAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. State

This case addresses the constitutionality of Chapter 5 of the Laws of 1999, which attempted to rescind New York City's commuter tax for New York State residents while retaining it for out-of-State commuters. The City of New York challenged the statute on home rule grounds, while residents of New Jersey and Connecticut, along with the State of Connecticut, argued it violated the Federal Constitution's Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses. The Court held that Chapter 5 did not violate state home rule provisions. However, it found the statute unconstitutional under the Federal Privileges and Immunities and Commerce Clauses due to its discriminatory treatment of out-of-State commuters. Consequently, the 'poison pill' provision of Chapter 5 took effect, leading to the repeal of the entire New York City commuter tax as of July 1, 1999.

Commuter TaxHome Rule ProvisionsPrivileges and Immunities ClauseCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeState TaxationTax DiscriminationNew York CityLegislative PowerStatutory Repeal
References
40
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Showing 1-10 of 5,341 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