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

Develop Don't Destroy (Brooklyn), Inc. v. Empire State Development Corp.

The court reviewed CPLR article 78 petitions challenging the New York State Urban Development Corp.'s (ESDC) modification of the Atlantic Yards Project plan under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Petitioners argued ESDC irrationally maintained a 10-year project build-out date and failed to mandate a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS), despite significant project delays outlined in new agreements. The court found ESDC's continued use of the 10-year build date arbitrary and capricious and its environmental analysis inadequate, necessitating an SEIS to address prolonged construction impacts. However, the court denied a stay on Phase I construction, citing its advanced stage and prior environmental review.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAAtlantic Yards ProjectProject Build-Out DelaySupplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS)Rational Basis ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDevelopment AgreementMTA AgreementNeighborhood Character Impacts
References
19
Case No. 18087/81
Regular Panel Decision

Orbach v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

Petitioners, including Mets Parking Incorporated and individual property owners doing business as Three-0 Realty Company, initiated a CPLR 7803 proceeding against the New York State Urban Development Corporation (UDC). They sought to compel UDC to comply with the Urban Development Corporation Act (UDCA) regarding a multi-million dollar 42nd Street Development Land Use Project in Manhattan. Petitioners alleged that a public hearing held by UDC on August 3, 1981, was insufficient because no UDC directors or authorized agents were present to listen or respond to public comments, thereby denying their procedural rights. The court found that UDC improperly delegated its power by appointing a hearing officer whose functions were limited to recording and transmitting comments without authority to hear and respond on behalf of UDC, thus denying petitioners a full and fair public hearing. Consequently, the court granted petitioners' motion to the extent of directing UDC to promptly hold another public hearing in full compliance with section 16 of the UDCA.

Public hearingUrban Development Corporation ActCPLR Article 78Administrative procedureDelegation of authorityDue processCommunity engagementReal estate developmentNew York StateJudicial review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Klein v. A.D. Development Ltd.

Frank Klein's motion to consolidate action numbers 1 and 2 was granted without opposition. Defendant Kala Zaveri, also president of A.D. Development Ltd., filed a cross-motion for summary judgment in the consolidated action, arguing she was exempt from liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) as an owner of a single-family dwelling. However, the court denied her motion, finding that the dwelling was part of a commercial enterprise intended for resale, not personal use. The court reasoned that the homeowner's exemption did not apply to commercial developers, emphasizing the statute's intent to place responsibility for worker safety on those best suited to provide such safeguards.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Homeowner ExemptionCommercial EnterpriseSummary JudgmentStatutory InterpretationWorker SafetyConsolidated ActionDeveloper LiabilityThird-Party Action
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Industrial Development Agency v. Roberts

This CPLR article 78 proceeding addresses whether the prevailing wage requirement of Labor Law § 220 applies to private construction projects financed by industrial development agencies using tax-exempt bonds. The petitioners, Quo Vadis Editions, Inc. and Erie County Industrial Development Agency, challenged the Commissioner of Labor's determination that such projects constitute "public works." Special Term ruled against the Commissioner, prohibiting the application of the prevailing wage requirement. The appellate court affirmed Special Term's decision, concluding that these projects are not "public works" because their fundamental purpose is private, with the private developer retaining economic ownership and benefits, despite the agency's formal title for financing mechanisms.

Prevailing WageIndustrial Development AgenciesTax-Exempt BondsPublic Works DoctrineLabor LawGovernmental FunctionPrivate DevelopmentDeclaratory ReliefStatutory InterpretationEconomic Development Incentives
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development v. Roosevelt Island Operating Corp.

This case involves consolidated appeals challenging the Roosevelt Island Operating Corporation's (RIOC) approval of the Related/Hudson site plan for Southtown development. Petitioners, Alternative Southtown Design Committee and Roosevelt Islanders for Responsible Southtown Development, argued RIOC failed to comply with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring a supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) and that the plan violated the General Development Plan (GDP). The Supreme Court's judgment, which had dismissed RIRSD's petition as untimely, was modified on appeal, finding the petition timely but denying it on the merits. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of Alternative's petition and the denial of RIRA's intervention, concluding that RIOC took the requisite "hard look" at environmental impacts and its decision was not arbitrary or capricious. Furthermore, the court found petitioners lacked standing to challenge the GDP's breach as they were merely incidental beneficiaries.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactGeneral Development PlanRoosevelt IslandLand UseUrban DevelopmentSite PlanJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative Law
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson Pipe Supply Co. v. Wyoming County Industrial Development Agency

This case addresses whether a construction project involving an industrial development agency (WCIDA) qualifies as a 'public improvement' under State Finance Law § 137, which would mandate the securing of payment bonds. Plaintiff Davidson, a supplier, was not paid for materials provided to a subcontractor on an energy cogeneration plant project developed by Indeck Energy Resources with WCIDA's assistance. Davidson sued WCIDA and Indeck for their alleged failure to require a bond. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Davidson, but the Appellate Division reversed, concluding the project was not a public improvement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, emphasizing that WCIDA's ownership was primarily for tax benefits, with the private entity, Indeck, bearing the economic risks and benefits. Consequently, the court held that the project was not a public improvement under the statute, and the complaint against the defendants was dismissed.

Industrial Development AgencyPublic ImprovementState Finance LawPayment BondLien LawConstruction ProjectPrivate EntityTax BenefitsCogeneration PlantAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Charles v. Broad Street Development, LLC

The plaintiff, a security guard, sustained personal injuries after falling into an elevator shaft at a building owned and managed by Broad Street Development, LLC, and 61 Broadway Owner, LLC. The elevator was maintained by Schindler Elevator Corp. After a jury initially found for the defendants, ruling the plaintiff a 'special employee' of the building defendants, the plaintiff moved to set aside the verdict. On reargument, the court determined, as a matter of law, that no special employment relationship existed between the plaintiff and the building defendants. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion to set aside the verdict against the building defendants was granted, and the case was remitted for a new trial against them. However, the verdict in favor of Schindler Elevator Corp. was affirmed.

personal injuryelevator accidentspecial employee doctrineworkers' compensationCPLR 4404(a)liabilityjury verdictreargumentnegligencepremises liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodriguez v. South Bronx Development Organization

In March 1986, the plaintiff, an employee of the New York City Human Resources Administration (HRA) loaned to the South Bronx Development Organization (SBDO), sustained an injury. The plaintiff initially filed for Workers’ Compensation benefits, identifying HRA as the sole employer and subsequently received benefits. In March 1989, the plaintiff sued SBDO for negligence. SBDO denied negligence and asserted that Workers’ Compensation was the plaintiff’s exclusive remedy, moving for a stay on the grounds that the Workers’ Compensation Board had primary jurisdiction to determine the plaintiff’s employment status. The court determined that factual questions regarding the plaintiff’s status as a 'special employee' of SBDO warranted deferring the issue to the Workers’ Compensation Board’s expertise. Furthermore, the court found that any delay by SBDO in moving for the stay did not cause operative prejudice to the plaintiff, thus not justifying a denial of the stay.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeNegligencePrimary JurisdictionStay of ActionEmployment StatusDeferralOperative PrejudiceAppellate ReviewJurisdiction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hastings Development, LLC v. Evanston Insurance

This case concerns a dispute between Hastings Development, LLC (Plaintiff) and Evanston Insurance Company (Defendant) regarding insurance coverage. Hastings sought a declaratory judgment that Evanston was obligated to indemnify it under a commercial general liability policy for a personal injury lawsuit, the Cohen Action. Evanston had denied coverage, citing an "Employer's Liability" exclusion. The Court found the exclusion ambiguous and, applying the contra proferentem rule, granted Hastings' motion for summary judgment, mandating indemnification. Additionally, the Court dismissed Hastings' claim for bad faith denial of insurance coverage, as New York law does not recognize it as a separate tort in these circumstances.

Insurance CoverageCommercial General Liability PolicyDeclaratory JudgmentEmployer's Liability ExclusionContract InterpretationAmbiguity in Insurance PoliciesContra Proferentem RuleSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissBad Faith Claim
References
52
Showing 1-10 of 3,292 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