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

Durant v. North Country Adirondack Cooperative Insurance

This appellate case concerns an insurer's duty to defend. Plaintiffs, farm owners including Robert Durant, sought reimbursement from North Country Adirondack Cooperative Insurance Company after the insurer denied coverage for a negligence action brought by Wayne Ashley, who was injured on their farm. The insurer cited a farm employee exclusion in their policy. Although the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the insurer, the appellate court determined that the insurer's duty to defend was established by the complaint. The court found the insurer failed to provide conclusive evidence that the farm employee exclusion applied, thus implying a reversal of the lower court's decision regarding the duty to defend.

Insurance LawDuty to DefendPolicy ExclusionFarm EmployeeNegligence ActionDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewContract InterpretationBurden of ProofExtrinsic Evidence
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Plains/Anadarko-P Ltd. Partnership v. Coopers & Lybrand

The case involves three limited partnerships suing Coopers & Lybrand over allegedly false financial statements audited by Coopers for Trans-Western Exploration, Inc. The court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss the first claim concerning fraud by accountants, finding the pleading sufficient. However, the second claim, mirroring the first with additions of aiding and abetting and fiduciary duty, was dismissed as redundant. Five pendent state law claims were also dismissed due to discretionary pendent jurisdiction. Finally, an eighth claim under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) was dismissed for insufficiency, as the auditing engagement did not satisfy the statutory requirements for conducting an enterprise or a pattern of racketeering. The plaintiffs were ordered to serve and file an amended complaint.

Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 9(b)Securities fraudSection 10(b) claimAiding and abettingFiduciary dutyPendent jurisdictionState law claimsRICO ActAuditing engagement
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02445 [237 AD3d 1500]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 25, 2025

Matter of Cooper (Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Ctr.)

This case involves an appeal from an order that vacated an arbitration award concerning the termination of a registered nurse, Wendy Cooper, from Roswell Park Comprehensive Cancer Center. Cooper was terminated for failing to comply with a COVID-19 vaccine mandate, which was later declared null and void in an unrelated case. The arbitrator, however, upheld Cooper's termination based on the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, reinstating Cooper, finding it irrational and against public policy. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, confirming the arbitration award. It held that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the award, as petitioners failed to prove it violated a strong public policy or was irrational under CPLR 7511 (b), reaffirming the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards.

Arbitration AwardVacaturPublic PolicyIrrationalityCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewJudicial Review Limitation
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Judicial Dissolution of Good Co. General Store Cooperative

Petitioners Diane Mohney and Laura Ferris sought judicial dissolution of Good Company General Store Cooperative under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, or alternatively, an accounting and judgment for their capital accounts. The court denied the petition for dissolution, finding petitioners lacked standing as their membership shares were automatically transferred upon termination of employment according to the cooperative's by-laws and Cooperative Corporations Law. However, the court granted the petitioners' alternative request, ordering Good Company to account for and pay the value of each petitioner’s capital account within 60 days, in compliance with its By-Laws. All other requests for judgment were denied without prejudice.

Worker CooperativeJudicial DissolutionBusiness Corporation Law § 1104-aCooperative Corporations LawMembership Share RedemptionInternal Capital AccountsBy-Laws DisputeCorporate StandingEmployment TerminationMember Rights
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cooper v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Plaintiff, identified as Cooper, filed an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) against the New York State Office of Mental Health (OMH) and his supervisors, Bryan F. Rudes and Richard A. Lallier. Cooper alleged he was demoted and terminated based on age (disparate treatment) and that OMH's policies had a disparate impact on employees over 60. He worked for OMH from 1975 to 1992, rising to Director of Quality Assurance before being reassigned and subsequently laid off at age 63 during a reduction in force. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the disparate treatment claim, citing material issues of fact regarding pretext, as Cooper's duties were transferred to a younger employee and his new role was vaguely defined and later eliminated. However, the court granted summary judgment for the defendants on the disparate impact claim due to insufficient evidence and legal uncertainty.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationDisparate TreatmentDisparate ImpactSummary JudgmentReduction in ForcePretextADEALayoffDemotion
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 1981

Greenspan v. Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational Services

The case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a petitioner against the Dutchess County Board of Cooperative Educational Services. The petitioner, whose position as co-ordinator of pupil services was abolished, sought reassignment to existing or newly created positions based on seniority and similarity of duties under Education Law § 2510. Special Term dismissed the petition, ruling the positions were not in the same tenure area nor involved similar duties. On appeal, the court rejected the petitioner's constitutional argument and her reliance on 8 NYCRR 30.8(a)(7) for administrative tenure areas. However, the appellate court determined that triable issues of fact existed regarding the similarity of duties between the petitioner's abolished role and the sought-after positions under both subdivisions of Education Law § 2510. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, the petition reinstated, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court, Dutchess County, for a hearing on these factual issues.

CPLR Article 78Reassignment RightsAbolished PositionTenure AreaEducation Law Section 2510Similarity of DutiesAdministrative TenureSupervisory AppointmentsDutchess County BOCESJudicial Review
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 08, 2000

McNulty v. City of New York

This dissenting opinion addresses the legal duty of physicians and hospitals to non-patients in a medical malpractice case. Plaintiff Mary Ann McNulty sued several doctors and hospitals after contracting meningococcal meningitis from her friend, Robin Reda, following alleged misinformation and failure to warn about prophylactic treatment. The dissent argues that expanding a physician's duty beyond the established physician-patient relationship to a non-patient friend creates an unmanageable and potentially limitless scope of liability, citing precedent that narrowly defines such duties even for immediate family members. It contends that the hospitals' voluntary undertaking to contact at-risk individuals did not create a legal duty of care to Ms. McNulty. Therefore, the dissenting judge would dismiss all claims against the physicians and hospitals involved.

Medical MalpracticeMedical NegligenceDuty of CarePhysician-Patient RelationshipContagious DiseaseMeningitisSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityForeseeability
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ellis v. Peter

This case addresses whether a physician owes a duty of care which extends to a patient's spouse who contracts tuberculosis due to the physician's alleged negligent failure to properly diagnose the disease in the patient. The plaintiffs, John and Joan Ellis, sued Dr. Sebastian A. Peter for medical malpractice. The wife, Joan Ellis, alleged negligence for failure to warn her about her husband's infectious condition. The court held that New York State law does not impose a statutory or common-law duty upon a physician for the benefit of those who may contract such a disease from the patient, as a physician's duty is ordinarily owed to the patient, not the community at large. Therefore, the order was reversed, the plaintiffs' motion to strike defenses was denied, and the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the wife's second and fourth causes of action was granted.

medical malpracticephysician's duty of carenegligencecommunicable diseasetuberculosisforeseeabilitystatutory dutycommon lawpatient spousezone of risk
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2000

Cooper v. Wyeth Ayerst Lederle

Plaintiff Anngela Cooper sued her former employer, American Home Products (AHP), her union (International Chemical Workers Union Local 143C), and her supervisor (Richard Dumas) for sex discrimination, sexual harassment, and retaliation under Title VII and state law. Cooper alleged a hostile work environment by Dumas following the end of a consensual sexual relationship, and that AHP and the Union failed to adequately address her complaints or protect her. The court granted summary judgment for AHP, dismissing all federal claims, finding the sexual harassment claim untimely and the retaliation/discrimination claims regarding the grievance process unsupported by evidence. The court also granted summary judgment for the Union, dismissing the duty of fair representation claim under Title VII, concluding that the Union's actions were not discriminatory. State law claims against AHP and Dumas were dismissed as the court declined supplemental jurisdiction.

Sex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentTitle VIIRetaliationSummary JudgmentConstructive DischargeDuty of Fair RepresentationUnion LiabilityEmployer LiabilityContinuing Violation Doctrine
References
59
Case No. 120 AD3d 1323
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 17, 2014

Tara N.P. v. Western Suffolk Board of Cooperative Educational Services

The plaintiff, Tara N.P., commenced an action to recover damages for personal injuries after being sexually assaulted by Larry I. Smith, a level three sex offender, at a facility where she was attending a GED course. Smith was referred to the facility by the Suffolk County Department of Labor as part of a 'welfare to work' program, despite an agreement that the facility would not accept individuals with criminal records. The Department of Labor allegedly failed to disclose Smith's criminal background. The appellants (County of Suffolk, Suffolk County Department of Social Services, and Suffolk County Department of Labor) moved for summary judgment dismissing the complaint and all cross claims against them, asserting governmental immunity. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to the appellants on the complaint against them, finding no special duty owed to the plaintiff. However, the Court affirmed the denial of summary judgment on the cross-claims, citing a triable issue of fact as to whether the appellants breached a duty of care to NACEC.

Personal InjuryGovernmental ImmunitySpecial DutySummary JudgmentContribution ClaimSex OffenderNegligenceDepartment of LaborSexual AssaultAppellate Review
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,749 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