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

Langham v. State

This case concerns an appeal by teachers, represented by the New York State United Teachers (NYSUT), challenging the denial of retroactive dual family health insurance coverage. The plaintiffs originally lost dual family coverage under a State Health Insurance Plan and subsequently sought the same retroactive benefits granted to members of another union, the New York Educators Association (NYEA), following a separate settlement. Their request was denied, leading them to file an action for declaratory and injunctive relief. Special Term dismissed the complaint as untimely, a decision affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the four-month limitations period of CPLR 217 governed the declaratory judgment action and began on January 3, 1984, when plaintiffs learned of the unequal treatment, rather than the later date of their specific request's denial.

Declaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefCivil Service LawCPLRStatute of LimitationsDual Family CoverageHealth InsuranceState EmployeesCollective BargainingUnequal Treatment
References
8
Case No. 04-15739
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 19, 2006

Continental Casualty Co. v. Pfizer, Inc. (In re Quigley Co.)

Plaintiffs Continental Casualty Company and Continental Insurance Company initiated an adversary proceeding against Pfizer, Inc., Quigley Company, Inc. (a debtor-in-possession and Pfizer's subsidiary), and numerous other insurance companies. The plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment that certain policies excluded coverage for asbestos-related claims, or alternatively, to reform them and apportion liability. Pfizer and Quigley moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim regarding anticipatory repudiation. A group of defendant insurers (Certain Insurers) sought to stay the proceeding and lift the automatic stay for arbitration. The court denied the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. It stayed Counts One, Two, and Three, and Guildhall's cross-claim, pending the arbitration of coverage disputes, granting the Certain Insurers relief from the automatic stay to commence arbitration. Count Four, concerning anticipatory repudiation, was dismissed without prejudice.

BankruptcyInsurance Coverage DisputeAsbestos LiabilityDeclaratory Judgment ActArbitration AgreementStay of LitigationMotions to DismissAnticipatory RepudiationWellington AgreementPolicy Exclusions
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pursuant to Section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code of Banco Nacional De Obras Y Servicios Publicos, S.N.C.

The International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers (IAM) sought relief from a preliminary injunction to pursue an action against Aeronaves de Mexico, S.A. de C.V. (Aeronaves) for declaratory judgment concerning a collective bargaining agreement. Aeronaves, represented by its Mexican bankruptcy trustee Banobras, objected, arguing the claims should be handled in Mexican bankruptcy court. Judge Tina L. Brozman analyzed the request in the context of section 304 of the Bankruptcy Code, emphasizing the specialized nature of American labor law, particularly the Railway Labor Act (RLA). Balancing international comity with the protection of American creditors, the court found that the issues regarding the existence and terms of the collective bargaining agreement required the expertise of an American district court. Therefore, the motion for relief from the stay was granted to permit the IAM action to proceed in the Southern District of New York.

Bankruptcy LawInternational ComitySection 304 StayRailway Labor Act (RLA)Collective Bargaining AgreementForeign BankruptcyAncillary ProceedingsDeclaratory ReliefLabor DisputeCreditor Claims
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewis v. City of Gloversville

A firefighter for the City of Gloversville sought a declaratory judgment to establish his entitlement to benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a for a knee injury, even though he was not currently disabled. The Supreme Court granted his motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the court held that the action was premature, as declaratory relief is not available for controversies contingent on future events that may never occur, and the statute does not allow for a "status" determination without a present need for benefits. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss, and dismissed the complaint.

Declaratory JudgmentFuture EntitlementFirefighter BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aPrematurity DoctrineAdvisory OpinionWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate ReversalSummary JudgmentMotion to Dismiss
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

GMA Accessories, Inc. v. Idea Nuova, Inc.

Plaintiff GMA Accessories, Inc. sued defendant Idea Nuova, Inc. for copyright infringement. Idea Nuova filed several counterclaims, including trademark infringement, false designation of origin, false description, false representation under Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act, trademark dilution under Section 43(c) of the Lanham Act, cancellation of trademark registration under Section 37, fraudulent trademark registration application under Sections 35(a) and 38, declaratory relief under the Declaratory Judgment Act, and common law unfair competition. GMA moved to dismiss these amended counterclaims. The court denied GMA's motion to dismiss the trademark infringement and dilution claims, as Idea Nuova sufficiently alleged secondary meaning and the elements of the dilution claim. However, the court granted dismissal for the cancellation of GMA's pending 'Room in a Box' trademark application, the Section 38 fraudulent registration claim due to pleading deficiencies, and the declaratory relief claim for lack of an actual controversy. The court retained jurisdiction over the cancellation claim for GMA's registered 'Room on the Run' trademark and the common law unfair competition claim.

Trademark InfringementCopyright InfringementLanham ActTrademark DilutionDeclaratory Judgment ActMotion to DismissCounterclaimsFraudulent RegistrationUnfair CompetitionSecondary Meaning
References
32
Case No. 17-09006
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 20, 2017

General Motors LLC v. Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust (In re Johns-Manville Corp.)

Plaintiff General Motors LLC initiated an adversary proceeding against the Manville Personal Injury Settlement Trust and its trustees, seeking a declaratory judgment that its state court action in Ohio against the Manville Trust was not enjoined by the channeling injunction from the Johns-Manville Corporation's chapter 11 reorganization plan. GM's Ohio action aimed to hold the Manville Trust liable under Ohio Revised Code § 4123.931 for an employee's widow's failure to notify GM of asbestos settlements. The court exercised jurisdiction, rejecting the Manville Trust's abstention arguments. It found that GM's claim against the Manville Trust, whether characterized as subrogation or contribution, constituted an "Other Asbestos Obligation" and was therefore explicitly barred by the Manville Plan's channeling injunction and the Trust Distribution Procedures (TDP). Consequently, the court enjoined GM from pursuing its Ohio Action against the Manville Trust.

Asbestos LitigationBankruptcy InjunctionChanneling InjunctionDeclaratory JudgmentManville TrustTrust Distribution ProceduresOhio LawSubrogation ClaimsContribution ClaimsWorkers' Compensation
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pelham Fence Co., Inc.

Lilliam Roberts, Commissioner of Labor for New York, moved for a declaratory judgment to establish that she is not barred by an automatic bankruptcy stay from pursuing funds withheld from the debtor, Pelham Fence Co., Inc., by the New York State Department of Audit and Control (DAC). The Commissioner argued these funds were not part of the bankruptcy estate. Alternatively, she sought relief from the stay, citing a lack of equity in the fund (approximately $57,000 against liens exceeding $600,000). The Chapter 7 bankruptcy trustee opposed the motion, contending the funds were estate property and that he might avoid prior liens for the estate's benefit. The court, citing precedents regarding segregated funds and lack of debtor equity, granted the Commissioner's motion, ruling that the withheld funds, subject to a pre-petition withholding order, do not constitute property of the bankruptcy estate and are not subject to the automatic stay.

BankruptcyAutomatic StayProperty of the EstateDeclaratory JudgmentWithheld FundsLabor LawNew York StateChapter 7Lien AvoidancePrevailing Wage
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schwimmer v. Kaladjian

Plaintiffs (the Schwimmers and their children) sued defendants (Kaladjian, Sabol, Little, Harris, Guilford), primarily challenging the allegedly unlawful removal of their son Yoel and non-consensual physical examinations of their children by the Child Welfare Administration (CWA). They also contested the defendants' patterns and policies regarding child removal. Defendant Kaladjian moved to dismiss the amended complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted Kaladjian's motion, concluding that the plaintiffs lacked standing to seek injunctive and declaratory relief as they failed to demonstrate an actual case or controversy or an immediate threat of future injury, relying instead on speculation. Consequently, the court also dismissed, sua sponte, similar claims for injunctive and declaratory relief against the other defendants.

Child AbuseChild Welfare AdministrationMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionStanding (Law)Injunctive ReliefDeclaratory ReliefFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue Process
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dreves v. New York Power Authority

Petitioners challenged the New York Power Authority's (NYPA) plan to construct a microwave repeater tower in St. Lawrence County, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and other statutory and zoning issues. The Supreme Court dismissed seven SEQRA-related causes of action as time-barred but allowed two declaratory relief claims concerning zoning and NYPA's statutory mandate to proceed. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the negative declaration issued by NYPA's Environmental Division Director was valid and that any earlier SEQRA infractions were cured, making the challenges time-barred. The appellate court also upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction and confirmed that the declaratory claims were timely, as the acts giving rise to relief (tower construction and operation) had not yet occurred.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactMicrowave TowerStatute of LimitationsDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefZoning OrdinancesPublic Authorities LawNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marshall v. N.Y. State Pub. High Sch. Athletic Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiff Brewster Marshall, a high school student with postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome, sued the Commissioner of Education of New York and athletic associations for denying him extended athletic eligibility to play basketball. He alleged violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and the Rehabilitation Act. The Commissioner filed a motion to dismiss the second amended complaint (SAC) or for judgment on the pleadings, arguing that Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief were moot due to his imminent graduation and the end of the basketball season, and that she had absolute judicial and legislative immunity. The Court granted the Commissioner's motion to dismiss the requests for injunctive and declaratory relief and the ADA claim for monetary damages, finding them moot or conceded by the Plaintiff. However, the Court denied the Commissioner's request for dismissal based on absolute judicial and legislative immunity and also denied the dismissal of the Section 504 monetary claim, stating that Plaintiff had sufficiently alleged deliberate indifference.

Disability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Rehabilitation Act Section 504Athletic eligibilityMootness doctrineAbsolute immunity (judicial)Absolute immunity (legislative)Deliberate indifferenceSovereign immunityDeclaratory relief
References
127
Showing 1-10 of 936 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