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

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bregman v. Harrolds

The petitioner, Ona Bergman, a Psychiatric Social Worker II for Onondaga County, sought reclassification of her position from salary grade 12 to 13 and a grievance hearing. The Special Term directed the respondent, Louis Harrolds, Commissioner of Personnel of Onondaga County, to hear the grievance. However, the Appellate Division found that position classification and salary allocations are not subject to review as grievances under the Onondaga County Grievance Procedure. The court modified the order, treating the petition as an application for position reclassification under rule XXIII of the Onondaga County Rules for Classified Service, requiring the Commissioner to determine if duties have changed. The dissenting judges argued that the court was ordering actions already taken and that reclassification and salary are the sole prerogative of the county legislature, not subject to judicial interference. The final decision modified the order and, as modified, affirmed it.

ReclassificationGrievance ProcedureArticle 78PersonnelSalary AllocationJudicial InterferenceDiscretionary ActCounty LawClassified ServiceOnondaga County Rules
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1997

McCauley v. McCauley

The case concerns a motion by the defendant, a former husband, to modify his child support and maintenance obligations following the termination of his employment. Justice Vito C. Caruso, of the Supreme Court, Schenectady County, found that the defendant, despite losing his $41,000 per year research scientist position, had not made a diligent effort to find new employment. The court imputed an annual income of $25,000 to the defendant and, after careful consideration of the Child Support Standards Act and the Matter of Holmes v Holmes decision, determined that a $19 per week child support award would be unjust. Consequently, the court modified the maintenance obligation from $190 to $95 per week and set child support at $95 per week, with both parties sharing health care costs, to ensure the children's needs and standard of living were maintained. The defendant's motion was granted in part, resulting in a modification of the original September 23, 1994 divorce judgment.

Child Support ModificationMaintenance ModificationImputed IncomeJob Search DiligenceParental ObligationsDivorce JudgmentSchenectady CountyChild Support Standards ActStandard of LivingBest Interests of the Child
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Paul E. Malecki, an ironworker, was injured when a 2,000-pound bundle of steel fell onto his foot. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200 (1), and common-law negligence against The Pike Company, Inc., the general contractor, and other defendants. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, but denied dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action. The court also denied conditional summary judgment on Pike’s common-law indemnification claim against Niagara Erecting but properly denied conditional summary judgment on Pike's contractual indemnification claim. The appeals court modified the order, affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and further ruled that the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action should also be dismissed, and conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Niagara Erecting should have been granted to Pike. The order was modified accordingly and affirmed.

Ironworker InjuryForklift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation RisksCommon-Law NegligenceIndemnification ClaimGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 1971

Maurizio v. Hoberman

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 26, 1971, concerning the rating examination papers of civil service workers. The initial judgment confirmed a Special Referee's report but was subsequently modified. The modification involved remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, with the judgment then affirmed as modified. The court underscored that the duty to establish requirements for promotional examinations lies solely with the respondents, and judicial interference is unwarranted if exercised fairly. Although the respondents did not participate in the appeal, implying agreement with the Special Term's views, the courts reaffirmed their inability to assume the respondents' powers or duties.

Civil ServicePromotional ExaminationExamination PapersJudicial ReviewRemandSupreme CourtReferee ReportAdministrative DiscretionJudicial RestraintNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Colona v. Colona

This case involves an appeal of a Family Court order from Broome County, entered August 7, 2013, which granted the father's application to modify a prior custody order. The parties, a father and mother, have two children. After the children stayed with the father in Colorado beyond a scheduled visitation, the father initiated custody modification proceedings in New York, while the mother sought visitation modification. The Family Court found a sufficient change in circumstances, citing the mother's unstable living situation and the children's positive adjustment with the father, and subsequently granted sole custody to the father during the school year. The Appellate Court affirmed this decision, finding a sound and substantial basis in the record for the Family Court's determination, and upheld its consideration of past circumstances and the attorney for the children's recommendation.

Custody ModificationParental FitnessChildren's Best InterestsChange in CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6RelocationParenting TimeCredibility AssessmentDomestic InstabilityChild Protective Services
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Hostess Brands, Inc.

This modified bench ruling addresses a motion by the Bakery, Confectionary, Tobacco Workers and Grain Millers International Union (Bakers' Union) to dismiss a debtor's Section 1113/1114 motion due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The central dispute revolves around whether Section 1113 of the Bankruptcy Code, which governs the rejection of collective bargaining agreements, applies to agreements that have technically expired but whose key terms remain in effect under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) until good faith bargaining to impasse. The Bakers' Union argued that expired agreements are not considered 'agreements' under Section 1113, a position the court largely concurred with, emphasizing the plain language of the statute and the distinction between Section 1113(e) and other subsections. Despite the debtor's arguments concerning the policy implications and potential interference with reorganization efforts, the court found insufficient evidence to extend the statute's language beyond its literal meaning. Consequently, the court granted the Bakers' Union's motion, concluding that Section 1113 does not apply to already expired collective bargaining agreements.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBankruptcy Code Section 1113Subject Matter JurisdictionNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Expired AgreementsDebtor in PossessionUnion Motion to DismissInterim ChangesGood Faith BargainingStatutory Interpretation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gielow v. Rosa Coplon Home

Plaintiff, a carpenter, was injured after slipping in an excavation while checking wooden forms at a construction site. Plaintiff sued under common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). Defendants Kamdar and Coplon, and third-party defendant Ciminelli, moved for summary judgment. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim but retained others. On appeal, the order was modified. The appellate court found Labor Law § 240 (1) was properly dismissed, and further ruled that Labor Law § 241 (6), common-law negligence, and Labor Law § 200 claims should have been dismissed against Kamdar and Coplon due to lack of supervisory control. Plaintiff's cross-motion to add Menorah Campus as a defendant was denied due to the Statute of Limitations.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilitySubcontractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityThird-Party ActionRelation Back DoctrineStatute of LimitationsNegligence
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2014

In Re the Arbitration Between Delaney Group, Inc. & Holmgren Enterprises, Inc.

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court order concerning an arbitration dispute between a prime contractor (Petitioner) and a subcontractor (Respondent) on a public work project. Respondent initially sought additional payment via arbitration, leading to an award that included credits for Petitioner. After a request for clarification, the arbitrator issued a modified award removing these credits. Petitioner then sought to vacate both the original and modified awards, while Respondent sought to confirm the modified award. The Supreme Court vacated both arbitration awards and remanded the case for a rehearing, finding that the arbitrator exceeded authority in modifying the award and imperfectly executed powers in the original award by failing to address a key stipulation. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, upholding the vacatur and remand of both arbitration awards.

ArbitrationContract DisputePublic Work ProjectSubcontractorPrime ContractorCross AppealsVacatur of AwardRemandArbitrator AuthorityCPLR 7511
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,876 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