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
Dec 21, 2016

MF Global Holdings Ltd. v. Allied World Assurance Co. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves an adversary proceeding in the New York Bankruptcy Court, where Plaintiffs MF Global Holdings, Ltd. and MF Global Assigned Assets LLC are seeking to recover E&O insurance proceeds from Bermuda-based insurers. The Bermuda Insurers had obtained ex parte anti-suit injunctions from a Bermuda court, preventing the Plaintiffs from participating in the New York proceedings. Judge Martin Glenn issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Bermuda Insurers from enforcing these injunctions, asserting the New York court's jurisdiction and emphasizing the importance of an adversarial system. The court declined to hold the insurers in contempt but scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing to fully address the complex jurisdictional and arbitrability issues.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingTemporary Restraining OrderAnti-suit InjunctionPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionArbitration AgreementHague ConventionInternational ComityInsurance Coverage
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Zimmer-Thomson Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

The employer filed an action against the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) and a union, seeking to set aside the union's certification as the exclusive bargaining representative and to restrain the union from taking further action before the National War Labor Board (NWLB). The employer alleged procedural flaws in the election process, including uncounted challenged ballots and denial of opportunity to be heard. Both defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court determined it lacked jurisdiction to review NLRB certifications, which are only informatory. Furthermore, it found that NWLB directives are merely advisory and thus cause no irreparable injury. Consequently, the court denied the employer's motion for a temporary injunction and dismissed the complaint, finding no cause of action.

Labor LawNLRB CertificationJudicial ReviewInjunctionCollective BargainingUnfair Labor PracticesWar Labor BoardChallenged BallotsDistrict Court JurisdictionAdministrative Law
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2011

Waller v. City of New York

This special proceeding concerns an application for an extension of a temporary restraining order related to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in Zuccotti Park. Petitioners, including Jennifer Waller, sought to prevent eviction, allow re-entry with gear, and recover seized property after participants were removed by the NYPD. The court, presided over by Justice Michael D. Stallman, denied the application. The decision found that Brookfield Properties, Inc., the private owner of Zuccotti Park, had the right to adopt reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the use of the park, even assuming First Amendment applicability. The court concluded that the rules were reasonable to maintain a clean, safe, and lawful public space and did not infringe on the movants' First Amendment rights.

Occupy Wall StreetZuccotti ParkFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechPeaceable AssemblyTemporary Restraining OrderPublic Access PlazaPrivate Property RightsZoning RegulationsProtest Movement
References
2
Case No. ADJ2272286 (LAO 0873209)
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

ENRIQUE CASTRO-AGUILAR vs. SECURITAS SECURITY SERVICES, BROADSPIRE

In this workers' compensation case, the Appeals Board granted reconsideration to determine if applicant's injuries were barred by the initial aggressor defense. The applicant, a security officer, was injured while using pepper spray and restraining a suspected shoplifter who was threatening him with a rock. The Board found that the applicant's actions, though potentially unauthorized in manner, were a good-faith attempt to prevent theft and did not constitute willful wrongdoing. Therefore, he was not the initial aggressor, and his claim for benefits is not barred.

initial aggressor defenseunauthorized mannerscope of employmentcourse of employmentaffirmative defensewillful wrongdoingintentional misconductreal present and apparent threat of bodily harmgood faith attemptprevent theft
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lucarelli

A police officer was indicted for official misconduct and hindering prosecution after allegedly warning a suspect's mother about an ongoing narcotics investigation targeting her son. The court dismissed the official misconduct charge, reasoning that warning a suspect's mother was not an official function of a police officer, and thus not an unauthorized exercise of an official function as required by statute. The hindering prosecution charge was also dismissed due to legally insufficient evidence that the suspect had committed a felony, as the purchaser's testimony about buying 'ecstasy' was conclusory and lacked sufficient foundation. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the entire indictment was granted.

Official MisconductHindering ProsecutionPolice OfficerGrand Jury IndictmentLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceControlled Substance IdentificationFelonyDismissal of IndictmentCriminal AssistanceUnauthorized Exercise of Official Functions
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Candor Central School District v. American Arbitration Ass'n

The Candor Central School District (the district) applied to the court for an order restraining the American Arbitration Association (AAA) from proceeding with arbitration. This application was made while a CPLR 7503 proceeding to stay arbitration, involving the district and the Candor Faculty Association, was pending in another court. The district argued against the need for a temporary restraining order in the CPLR 7503 proceeding, citing judicial time and client costs. The AAA countered that its impartiality would be compromised if it were named an adverse party and stressed the importance of proceeding with arbitration unless explicitly stayed by stipulation or court order. The court ultimately denied the district's application, concluding that restraining the AAA was inappropriate and advising the district to seek relief within the pending CPLR 7503 proceeding.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationCPLR 7503American Arbitration Association (AAA)Injunctive ReliefJudicial InterventionArbitration RulesCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial RestraintProcedural Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robeson Appliances v. International Ass'n of Machinists & Aerospace Workers

The plaintiff manufacturer sought a permanent injunction against striking employees and their unions following alleged violent and disorderly conduct during a strike commenced on February 28, 1977, at its Castile and Perry, New York facilities. The plaintiff also obtained a temporary restraining order. The defendants cross-moved for dismissal, arguing the complaint failed to meet requirements of Labor Law § 807, which governs injunctive relief in labor disputes, and for vacatur of the temporary restraining order under CPLR 6313 (subd [a]). The court agreed with the defendants, holding that even extreme violence in a labor dispute does not negate the applicability of Labor Law § 807, contrary to the plaintiff's interpretation of precedent like Nathan's Famous. Consequently, the temporary restraining order was vacated, and the complaint was dismissed without prejudice due to the plaintiff's failure to allege inadequate police protection and compliance with employer obligations under Labor Law § 807. The plaintiff was also directed to pay the defendants' reasonable costs and expenses.

Labor DisputeInjunctionStriking EmployeesPermanent InjunctionTemporary Restraining OrderCPLR 3211Labor Law § 807Collective Bargaining AgreementMass PicketingViolent Conduct
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lowery v. Spector

The appellant, trustee of the Spector Employees Profit Sharing Trust, sought to distribute funds to beneficiary William Spector. However, the trustee was served with a restraining notice by William Spector's judgment creditors (plaintiffs). The appellant argued the funds were exempt from assignment or alienation under the provisions of ERISA. Special Term denied the motion to vacate the restraining notice and ordered the turnover of funds to satisfy the judgment. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding no federal law prohibiting a levy on trust funds once the trust has terminated and the principal is available for distribution.

ERISAProfit Sharing TrustRetirement PlanRestraining NoticeJudgment CreditorsTrust Fund DistributionExemption from LevyAlienation of FundsQualified Retirement PlanAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Penkalski v. McCall

A police officer, the petitioner, filed for accidental disability retirement benefits after injuring his knee in a slip and fall on wet grass while pursuing a suspect. The respondent denied the application, arguing that the incident did not qualify as an "accident" under the Retirement and Social Security Law, considering it an inherent risk of police work. The court upheld the respondent's decision, asserting that an injury is only accidental if it results from an event not ordinarily anticipated within the scope of employment. Given that chasing suspects and encountering various environmental conditions, including wet grass, are inherent to police duties, the slip and fall was deemed an anticipated risk.

Accidental DisabilityRetirement BenefitsPolice OfficerSlip and FallInherent RiskEmployment AccidentCPLR Article 78Appellate DivisionNew York LawPublic Employment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Allen v. McCall

A police officer, the petitioner, sought accidental disability retirement benefits after injuring his shoulder and neck while apprehending a suspect. The petitioner claimed the injury occurred during a struggle while attempting to handcuff the suspect, resulting in a fall. However, reports given to the Workers’ Compensation Board and an orthopedic surgeon stated the injury occurred while lifting a prisoner from the ground. The respondent denied the application, crediting the latter evidence and concluding that lifting a prisoner is a normal duty of a police officer, thus not an 'accident'. The court found substantial evidence to support the respondent’s determination, confirmed the denial, and dismissed the petition.

Police OfficerAccidental Disability RetirementShoulder InjuryNeck InjuryApprehension of SuspectWorkers' Compensation BoardOrthopedic SurgeonNormal DutiesSubstantial Evidence
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 171 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