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

New York City Transit Authority v. Lindner

This case involves an appeal concerning judgments from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which adjudged certain defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court for violating the Taylor Law and imposed fines. The judgment dated April 8, 1980, finding criminal contempt, was affirmed. However, the judgment dated July 14, 1980, which imposed additional fines, was modified. Specifically, provisions adjudging Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, guilty of criminal contempt and fining them were deleted. The court determined that the international unions had complied with the prior order by instructing locals to return to work, and their actions did not constitute willful defiance.

Criminal ContemptTaylor LawLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityAppellate ReviewJudiciary LawPublic WelfareCollective BargainingStrike SanctionsInjunction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Department of Housing Preservation & Development v. Deka Realty Corp.

This appellate opinion addresses the proper assessment of contempt sanctions and civil penalties against Deka Realty Corp. for numerous housing code violations. The court clarifies that civil contempt fines must compensate aggrieved tenants for actual damages, not be based on a multiplication of statutory maximums per violation, and remits for a damages hearing. Criminal contempt fines, intended to vindicate court authority, were reduced to $1,000 per contemnor. The court also held that while serious monetary sanctions can trigger a constitutional right to a jury trial, Deka Realty Corp. waived this right by failing to make a timely demand. Civil penalties against Deka were also reduced.

Contempt sanctionsCivil penaltiesHousing code violationsJury trial rightJudiciary LawCivil contempt finesCriminal contempt finesConsent decreeLandlord-tenant disputeDue process
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Borsack v. Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd.

Ronald Borsack (also known as Ron Bell) filed a breach of contract action against Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, Ltd., Sevenarts, Ltd., Chalk & Vermilion Fine Arts, LLC, and David Rogath. The defendants removed the case from New York Supreme Court to federal court, citing diversity jurisdiction and later jurisdiction under the Convention for the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitration Awards. Borsack claimed an oral agreement for a "finders fee" of five Erte artist proofs, which he alleged was memorialized in an addendum to a license agreement between Chalk & Vermilion and Sevenarts. The defendants moved to stay the action pending arbitration as per the license agreement, while Borsack cross-moved to remand the case to state court, arguing a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court found that diversity jurisdiction was absent as Borsack was domiciled in New York, the same as one of the defendants. However, the court determined it had federal question jurisdiction under the Federal Arbitration Act's Chapter 2, as the dispute involved an international commercial arbitration agreement. The court further concluded that Borsack, as an intended third-party beneficiary of the License Agreement and Addendum, was bound by its arbitration clause. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for a stay pending arbitration and denied Borsack's motion to remand.

Breach of ContractArbitration AgreementFederal Arbitration ActDiversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionThird-Party BeneficiaryConvention on Foreign Arbitral AwardsRemand MotionStay Pending ArbitrationContract Interpretation
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 1990

Bergin v. Peplowski

Plaintiff commenced an action seeking a preliminary injunction to prevent defendants from obstructing a common driveway. Despite the injunction, defendants continued to obstruct access. Plaintiff moved to hold defendants in contempt, which the Supreme Court granted, imposing a fine and counsel fees. On appeal, the higher court affirmed the contempt finding, concluding that the preliminary injunction's mandate was clear and defendants' disobedience was proven. The court rejected defendants' arguments regarding the injunction's precision, its breadth, and the necessity of a hearing, finding sufficient factual basis in the submitted papers.

Contempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionCommon DrivewayObstructionCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewCourt Order EnforcementProperty RightsJudiciary LawMotion Practice
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spectacular Venture, L.P. v. World Star International, Inc.

This memorandum opinion addresses a contempt motion concerning a consent judgment from September 1995, which the defendant repeatedly failed to honor. The court previously held both the defendant and its principal, Thomas Reynolds, in civil contempt and imposed escalating coercive fines. The plaintiff sought Reynolds' arrest, but the court analyzed its power to order such an arrest for civil contempt, especially given Reynolds' location outside the district in Texas. The court ultimately ruled that it lacked the authority under Fed.R.Civ.P. 4.1(b) to order an arrest for civil contempt beyond New York State or 100 miles from the courthouse in a diversity case. Consequently, the court again held the defendant and Reynolds in civil contempt, increased fines, and ordered payments, but denied the motion for an extraterritorial arrest.

ContemptCivil ContemptArrest OrderExtradistrict ArrestFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRule 4.1(b)Jurisdictional LimitsCoercive FinesConsent JudgmentDefault
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State of NY v. Unique Ideas

This consumer fraud action, initiated by the Attorney-General, concerns Unique Ideas, Inc. and Ernie Tucker's violation of a 1974 consent judgment. Defendants, within a month, continued their "get rich quick" scheme by mailing deceptive solicitations to millions. Special Term found them in civil contempt, attaching $209,000 for victim restitution and imposing a conditional fine. The Appellate Division drastically reduced this fine. The Court of Appeals modified the order, provisionally assessing a $209,000 compensatory fine to indemnify defrauded subscribers and cover the Attorney-General's expenses, emphasizing that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive, and should relate to the scope of injury. The court affirmed the order as modified, answering the certified question in the negative.

Consumer FraudCivil ContemptConsent Judgment ViolationRestitutionCompensatory FinePunitive DamagesJudiciary LawGeneral Business LawAppellate ReviewCourt of Appeals
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 1992

Fonar Corp. v. Deccaid Services., Inc.

The court amended its findings regarding a contempt proceeding and a preliminary injunction. It found defendants Deccaid Services, Inc., Peter Kim, Louis Treglia, Stephen Steckler, and Equi Med Leasing, Inc. in knowing and willful contempt of a prior Temporary Restraining Order issued on October 2, 1991. The defendants were prohibited from copying, reproducing, selling, or using Fonar's copyrighted 'Maintenance Software' and 'Schematics' for Beta 3000 and Beta 3000M MRI Scanners. As a result of the contempt, the plaintiff, Fonar Corporation, was awarded attorneys' fees, and the court issued further prohibitions against the defendants, including David Smith and Medical Funding of America, Inc., from servicing Fonar MRI Scanners using the protected software or schematics, and from forming new business entities to circumvent the order. Additionally, the court granted a preliminary injunction, affirming irreparable harm to Fonar due to copyright infringement and trade secret misappropriation, and the likelihood of success on the merits, thereby enjoining defendants from further violations.

Copyright InfringementContempt of CourtPreliminary InjunctionSoftware ProtectionTrade SecretsMRI TechnologyIntellectual PropertyIrreparable HarmAttorneys' FeesWillful Violation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Fine v. S.M.C. Microsystems Corp.

The dissenting opinion argues to affirm the Workers' Compensation Board's decision, asserting that the claimant, Seymour Fine, met the 'mixed purpose' test for work performed at home. The dissent highlights Fine's regular pattern of working at home, his supervisor's agreement regarding the benefit to the employer, and his dedicated workspace at home. It emphasizes that the accident occurred on a non-regular workday when Fine was carrying work-related materials to continue work at home after visiting his office, suggesting he was working against a deadline. The dissent also addresses the majority's focus on Fine not demanding extra pay, inferring that working at home compensated for his slow pace due to a physical disability, with his supervisor's permission.

Work from HomeSpecial Assignment RuleMixed Purpose TestCourse of EmploymentOff-Premises WorkCommute AccidentEmployer BenefitRegular Work PatternPhysical Disability
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2012

Ruesch v. Ruesch

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in a divorce and ancillary relief action. The Supreme Court found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a stipulation by allowing her paramour to reside in the marital home. The court suspended maintenance payments and imposed a prospective fine. The plaintiff argued for retrospective application of these penalties and an award of an attorney's fee. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive for past acts without proven actual loss. The court also found the denial of attorney's fees to be without merit.

DivorceCivil ContemptMaintenance PaymentsStipulation ViolationProspective FineMarital HomeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionRemedial FineAttorney's Fee
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 206 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