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
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2004

Spages v. Gary Null Associates, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from an order regarding a plaintiff's Labor Law claims against defendants Gary Null Associates, Inc. and Selma Weiser. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) claims, but the appellate court modified this. The appellate decision denied the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing comparative negligence as a valid defense and evidence of the plaintiff's own contribution to the injury. However, the grant of summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim was affirmed, as comparative negligence is not a defense, and defendants failed their nondelegable duty to provide adequate scaffolding. Additionally, the court affirmed the denial of Selma Weiser's cross-motion for common-law indemnification against Gary Null Associates, Inc., finding Null's liability to be purely statutory and not actively negligent.

Labor LawScaffolding SafetySummary JudgmentComparative NegligenceIndemnificationStatutory DutyWorkplace InjuryPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewConstruction Safety
References
3
Case No. SFO 457386
Regular
Mar 14, 2008

ALEJO GONZALES vs. SEE'S CANDIES, LUMBERMEN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY, BROADSPIRE

A lien claimant's objection to a dismissal order, despite an incorrect case number, was deemed timely filed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The Board rescinded its prior dismissal order, finding it null and void due to the timely objection. The case is now returned to the trial level for a merits-based adjudication of the lien claimant's claim.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantObjectionPetition for ReconsiderationOrder of DismissalTimelinessClerical ErrorIndustrial InjuryShipping SupervisorRight Lower Extremity
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brooks v. Engar

The case involves an appeal concerning the expulsion of a member, referred to as the plaintiff, by an association, the defendant. The court found that the expulsion proceedings violated the plaintiff's rudimentary due process rights, specifically the right to confront and cross-examine witnesses. It was noted that the plaintiff was excluded during key witness testimony, the witness's identity was intentionally withheld, and access to the meeting minutes was denied. These procedural errors prevented the plaintiff from effectively presenting an appeal to the international union's executive board. Consequently, the judgment of expulsion is reversed, declared null and void, and a new trial is ordered to determine the plaintiff's damages.

expulsiondue processright to confront witnessescross-examinationassociation rulesfair trialmember rightsnew trialdamagesappeal
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04677 [230 AD3d 1559]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2024

Matter of Spence (State Univ. of N.Y.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Michelle Laframboise, from SUNY Upstate due to her failure to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The Supreme Court granted the petition to vacate the award, citing public policy and irrationality after a regulation requiring vaccination was declared null and void in a separate decision. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this order, holding that the petitioners failed to meet the heavy burden to establish that the arbitrator's award violated public policy or was irrational, as the arbitrator's jurisdiction was limited to the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the arbitration award confirming the termination was reinstated.

Arbitration Award ReviewCPLR Article 75 ProceedingPublic Policy ViolationArbitrator's PowerCollective Bargaining DisputesCOVID-19 Vaccine MandatesEmployee TerminationAppellate Division Fourth DepartmentJudicial Scrutiny of AwardsEmployer-Employee Arbitration
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Unicorn Developers, Ltd. v. Commissioner of Labor

The petitioner sought to nullify two orders entered as judgments by the Commissioner of Labor, arguing the retroactive application of 1989 Labor Law amendments (sections 220 and 220-b) was impermissible for orders issued in March 1987. The court examined whether these amendments, allowing administrative orders to be filed as judgments, could be applied retroactively. It found that such application would violate the petitioner's due process rights by stripping away vested defenses, particularly the Statute of Limitations. The court concluded that retroactive application was improper, especially since it would resurrect a time-barred claim for one of the orders. Consequently, the petition was granted, and the judgments entered by the Commissioner were declared null and void.

RetroactivityStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessLabor LawPrevailing WagePublic Works ContractsAdministrative OrdersJudgment EnforcementStatute of LimitationsCPLR Article 78
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Herne

This case addresses a jurisdictional issue concerning the St. Regis Mohawk Tribal Police's authority outside their reservation boundaries. Defendant Amanda Herne was arrested by tribal police in Franklin County, but outside the St. Regis Mohawk Reservation, for aggravated driving while intoxicated, driving while intoxicated, and speed not reasonable and prudent. The court, interpreting Indian Law § 114, concluded that the tribal police's powers are strictly limited to the reservation, except for specific circumstances not present. Consequently, the arrest was deemed null and void due to lack of jurisdiction. The indictment against Amanda Herne was dismissed, with the court noting that tribal officers can still assist other agencies or provide citizen testimony.

Indian LawTribal Police JurisdictionSt. Regis Mohawk TribeCriminal Procedure LawStatutory ConstructionGeographic JurisdictionDWITraffic OffenseArrest AuthorityMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanna v. Clarke

Albert J. Hanna, an executive delegate of Buffalo Local No. 1, brought an action against Paul J. Clarke, president of the Empire State Telephone Workers’ Organization, seeking a declaratory judgment. Hanna challenged his removal by the union's executive committee for allegedly not taking an active part in a meeting. He argued he was deprived of a fair hearing, as his request for postponement due to dental surgery was denied, and that his actions did not warrant charges under the union's constitution. The court found that while Hanna's actions were "childish, undignified and irritating," they did not justify the charges. Consequently, the court granted Hanna a declaratory judgment, declaring the executive committee's action null and void and enjoining them from disapproving his redesignation on the grounds previously stated.

Declaratory JudgmentUnion LawExecutive DelegateFair HearingDue ProcessUnion ConstitutionInternal Union DisputeWorkers' RightsPostponement RefusalExecutive Committee
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2006

Land Master Montg I, LLC v. Town of Montgomery

In this case, petitioners Land Master and Roswind Farmland Corp. challenged the Town of Montgomery's new Comprehensive Plan and Local Laws 4 and 5, arguing they constituted unlawful exclusionary zoning and violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court, presided over by Judge Joseph G. Owen, granted the petitioners' motion regarding these claims, declaring the local laws null and void. The decision highlighted the Town's failure to adequately consider local and regional affordable housing needs and to undertake a thorough environmental review. While some of the petitioners' other claims were dismissed, they were awarded attorneys' fees. The court ordered the reinstatement of petitioners' land use applications under the prior zoning laws.

Zoning LawExclusionary ZoningAffordable HousingState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Comprehensive PlanLocal LegislationLand Use PlanningMulti-Family HousingTraffic ImpactJudicial Review
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1979

Jordan v. Estate of Newman

The Workers' Compensation Board awarded benefits to a claimant for injuries sustained in 1974. The employer, Jennie Newman, died in October 1974, and no legal representative was appointed for her estate. The court determined that the Board lacked jurisdiction to make an award against the deceased employer's estate as no party existed over which it could exercise jurisdiction following Newman's death, citing that proceedings against a deceased party before substitution of a personal representative are null and void. The case was reversed and remitted to the Board to secure jurisdiction over Newman's estate through the appointment of a legal representative. The court also rejected the Uninsured Employers' Fund's argument of waiver of personal jurisdiction, stating there was no factual support and waiver was impossible without a legally appointed representative for the estate.

Workers' CompensationJurisdictionDeceased EmployerLegal RepresentativeEstateUninsured Employers' FundRemittalPersonal JurisdictionWaiverAppellate Review
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 150 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