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

Commissioner of Social Services ex rel. Edith S. v. Victor C.

This case addresses a respondent's challenge to a paternity hearing, specifically an objection regarding a Support Magistrate's authority to determine estoppel issues. The court found the respondent's procedural objection unavailing, noting that the Support Magistrate correctly referred the equitable estoppel matter to a Family Court Judge as per Family Ct Act § 439 (b). Evidence presented established a familial relationship between the 13-year-old child and the respondent, with the child considering him her father and a social worker testifying about the emotional harm genetic testing would cause. Consequently, the Family Court properly concluded that the respondent is estopped from denying paternity based on the child's best interests.

PaternityEquitable EstoppelBest Interests of the ChildFamily Court ActSupport MagistrateGenetic TestingFamilial RelationshipPanel DecisionJudicial ReferralChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chatelain v. Mount Sinai Hospital

Plaintiff, discharged from Mount Sinai Hospital for misconduct, was denied unemployment benefits by the New York State Department of Labor. Though the administrative decision was upheld on appeal, plaintiff did not pursue state court review but instead filed a federal action alleging wrongful discharge and breach of duty of fair representation. Defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting collateral estoppel based on the administrative ruling. The District Court denied defendant's motion and granted plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the collateral estoppel defense, holding that administrative agency decisions not reviewed by a state court, especially those from potentially unfair hearings, should not be given preclusive effect in federal court actions under the Labor Management Relations Act.

Wrongful DischargeCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataUnemployment BenefitsAdministrative LawFederal Court JurisdictionLabor Management Relations ActDue ProcessSummary JudgmentGrievance Procedures
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greene County Department of Social Services v. Ward

This is a concurring opinion by Chief Judge Kaye regarding a case involving Ms. Ward and the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). Ms. Ward, facing challenges with her son Jeffrey's severe behavioral issues and a lack of support services, was coerced into permanently relinquishing her parental rights to GCDSS after they refused a temporary relinquishment and failed to provide adequate assistance. She subsequently challenged a child support order, citing statutory exceptions and equitable estoppel due to GCDSS's alleged failures in providing information on parental support obligations and mandatory preventive services. While the court affirmed the original support order, Chief Judge Kaye's opinion highlights the GCDSS's apparent non-compliance with regulatory mandates, including the failure to inform parents of support obligations, conduct a 'best interests' analysis, and refer to essential preventive and emergency mental health services, stressing that such a situation should not recur. However, the requested remedy of estoppel against the agency could not be granted.

Parental RightsChild SupportSocial Services AgencyEquitable EstoppelRegulatory CompliancePreventive ServicesChild WelfareGreene CountyConcurring OpinionFamily Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1980

Hilowitz v. Hilowitz

In a negligence action for personal injuries, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 22, 1980. The order, issued by Justice Hyman, had denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defense of collateral estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that an arbitration award, even without judicial confirmation, can serve as a basis for res judicata and collateral estoppel if there was a final determination on the merits. The court referenced Kilduff v Donna Oil Corp. and distinguished Hana Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v Sheet Metal Workers Int. Assn. All other contentions raised by the plaintiff were deemed to be without merit.

NegligencePersonal InjuryAppealCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataArbitration AwardJudicial ConfirmationFinal DeterminationAppellate DecisionSupreme Court Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2001

Lozada v. GBE Contracting Corp.

Klever Lozada, a plaintiff, was injured after falling from a truck while painting a highway bridge. He and other plaintiffs initially brought an action against the State of New York and GBE Contracting Corp., the general contractor. A prior ruling in the Court of Claims, which initially granted Lozada an interlocutory judgment under Labor Law § 240 (1), was reversed on appeal, concluding that Lozada was a recalcitrant worker and his own conduct was the sole proximate cause of his injuries. Subsequently, GBE Contracting Corp. moved for summary judgment in the Supreme Court action, citing collateral estoppel based on the appellate reversal. The Supreme Court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint, and the appellate court affirmed, holding that the issue of Lozada's sole proximate cause had been previously decided, thus precluding relitigation.

Collateral EstoppelRecalcitrant WorkerSummary JudgmentLabor LawPersonal InjuryAppealsProximate CauseDamagesQueens CountySupreme Court
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mangum v. National Union Fire Insurance

A claimant was injured in July 2000 and filed for workers' compensation after her disability claim was denied. The Workers' Compensation Board initially indexed the claim against Career Horizons, Inc., with AIG Claims Services, Inc. as its administrator. AIG failed to appear at multiple hearings, leading to the claim's establishment and penalties. After an initial appeal by AIG, the Board affirmed the establishment but remitted the case to identify the proper carrier. CNA Insurance Company was subsequently identified as the employer's true workers' compensation carrier. The WCLJ and the Board ruled that AIG was estopped by laches from denying coverage. This court, however, reversed the Board's finding of estoppel, concluding that the Board abused its discretion by not addressing evidence suggesting CNA had timely notice of the claim and basing its decision on incorrect employer/carrier identification. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationEstoppelLachesInsurance CoverageCarrier LiabilityThird-Party AdministratorAppellate ReviewRemittalProcedural Due ProcessTimely Notice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rigopolous v. American Museum of Natural History

The case examines the application of collateral estoppel stemming from a workers’ compensation proceeding. The court found that collateral estoppel correctly barred the plaintiff's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, affirming the lower court's dismissal of that specific cause of action. However, the Supreme Court erred in applying collateral estoppel to the plaintiff’s claims of negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), as the prior workers' compensation determination was too narrow. Consequently, the appellate court modified the order to reinstate the negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) causes of action, citing the defendant's failure to eliminate all triable issues of fact.

Collateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationSummary JudgmentLabor Law §240Labor Law §200Labor Law §241NegligenceIssue PreclusionAppellate ReviewJudicial Error
References
12
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06801
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2025

AmTrust N. Am., Inc. v. Insurance Specialty Group LLC

The plaintiff, AmTrust North America, Inc., appealed an order dismissing parts of its breach of contract claim against Insurance Specialty Group LLC. The dispute stems from a 2010 Managing Producer Agreement where the defendant was to administer an asset protection program for the plaintiff, with fiduciary duties. Plaintiff alleged multiple breaches, including improper underwriting and concealment of issues, which came to light in 2022. The Supreme Court dismissed claims before May 19, 2017, but the Appellate Division modified this by applying equitable estoppel. The appellate court ruled that estoppel could allow most breach of contract claims, except those solely based on the fiduciary duty to disclose, which are not subject to estoppel for time-barred breaches.

Breach of ContractEquitable EstoppelFiduciary DutyStatute of LimitationsAsset Protection ProgramUnderwriting GuidelinesInsurance AdministrationConcealmentContinuing Wrong DoctrineAppellate Division
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Acunzo v. Newsday, Inc.

The claimant, a district circulation manager for Newsday, Inc., sustained a back injury in 1981 while unloading newspapers. After initially receiving payments and returning to work, he retired in 1982 and subsequently sought workers' compensation benefits, claiming his injury necessitated his retirement. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge awarded benefits, which the employer appealed, arguing collateral estoppel based on a prior unemployment insurance denial. The Workers' Compensation Board rejected the collateral estoppel argument, differentiating between requiring retirement and being a factor in it, and referred the case for further evidence on disability and its causal link to retirement. The appellate court ultimately dismissed the employer's appeal as nonfinal, concluding that the underlying substantive issues had not been fully resolved and the collateral estoppel issue was not dispositive.

Workers' CompensationBack InjuryRetirementCollateral EstoppelNonfinal OrderAppeal DismissedDisabilityCausal RelationshipUnemployment InsuranceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corp.

The Trustees of the Local 852 General Warehouseman’s Union Pension Fund sued the Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC) seeking reimbursement for pension benefits paid to retirees of two closed warehouses. The Fund argued for recovery based on equitable estoppel, asserting detrimental reliance on an initial PBGC determination that it would guarantee these benefits. The PBGC moved for summary judgment, contending that estoppel against a federal agency requires a showing of affirmative misconduct or manifest injustice. The Court found no evidence of affirmative misconduct by the PBGC and concluded that its change in determination, made to conform with Congressional intent, did not constitute manifest injustice. Consequently, the Court granted the PBGC's motion for summary judgment, ruling that equitable estoppel was inapplicable.

Equitable EstoppelFederal Agency EstoppelSummary JudgmentERISAPension BenefitsMulti-employer PlanPension Benefit Guarantee Corporation (PBGC)Affirmative MisconductManifest InjusticeDetrimental Reliance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 375 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