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

FSI Group v. First Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

Plaintiff FSI, a New York limited partnership, filed a complaint against defendant First Federal Savings and Loan Association, based in South Dakota, alleging repudiation and breach of a standby agreement to purchase Government National Mortgage Association (GNMA) securities. The defendant moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction and improper venue. The court, presided over by Judge Motley, denied the defendant's motion, finding that personal jurisdiction was established under New York CPLR § 301 and § 302(a)(1) due to the defendant's purposeful business transactions within New York through agents. Furthermore, the court determined that venue was proper in the Southern District of New York, considering the limited partnership's principal place of business as its residence for venue purposes, distinct from its individual partners.

Personal JurisdictionImproper VenueLimited PartnershipBreach of ContractStandby AgreementGNMA SecuritiesMinimum ContactsDue ProcessAgent ActivityPurposeful Availment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Weil v. Long Island Savings Bank, FSB

Plaintiffs, a class of individuals who obtained residential loans from Long Island Savings Bank FSB (LISB) between 1983 and 1992, sought class certification in a lawsuit alleging that LISB charged excessive legal fees that were used to fund illegal kickbacks to its CEO. The action, brought under federal statutes like RICO, TILA, RESPA, and New York General Business Law, claimed fraud and negligent supervision related to these undisclosed payments. Defendants opposed the class certification, citing issues with Rule 23 requirements such as numerosity, commonality, typicality, and adequacy of representation, as well as arguments about the predominance of individual issues and the statute of limitations. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Platt, addressed each of the defendants' arguments, ultimately finding that the plaintiffs met the criteria for class certification. Consequently, the motion for class certification was granted.

Mortgage FraudKickback SchemeClass CertificationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23RICO ActTruth in Lending Act (TILA)Real Estate Settlement Procedures Act (RESPA)Equitable TollingStatute of LimitationsAdequacy of Representation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 1987

Save Pine Bush, Inc. v. City of Albany

This case involves appeals concerning a combined declaratory judgment action and CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by Save the Pine Bush, Inc. and others against the Planning Board of the City of Albany and intervenors State Employees Federal Credit Union (SEFCU) and Madison Avenue Extension Office Park, Inc. (MAEOPI). Petitioners challenged the rezoning and site plan approvals for two commercial projects in the Pine Bush area, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The Supreme Court annulled the Board's approvals, a decision affirmed on appeal despite the projects' completion, due to the public importance and recurrence likelihood of the environmental issues. The Appellate Division found the Board's approval arbitrary and capricious, as it failed to take a "hard look" at the cumulative environmental impact, specifically regarding the minimum acreage required for the Pine Bush ecology and the Karner Blue butterfly's survival. The court dismissed appeals from motions to reargue, affirming the necessity of addressing the minimum preserve issue for SEQRA compliance.

Environmental Impact ReviewSEQRAPine BushZoningSite Plan ApprovalCollateral EstoppelMootness DoctrineCumulative Environmental ImpactKarner Blue ButterflyType I Action
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clause v. E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Co.

Plaintiff Darrell H. Clause, Jr. sustained back injuries in a construction site accident while being transported in a pickup truck owned by his employer, Higgins Erectors & Haulers, Inc., a subcontractor for general contractor Scrufari Construction Co., Inc., at a site owned by E.I. du Pont De Nemours & Company. A jury found violations of Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence, awarding damages for medical expenses and lost wages but no pain and suffering to plaintiff, nor any damages to his wife's derivative claim. The Supreme Court initially set aside the verdict regarding Labor Law § 241 (6) liability and granted a new trial. On appeal, the higher court found that the Supreme Court abused its discretion in setting aside the jury's verdict on Labor Law § 241 (6) and Higgins' negligence. The appellate court also determined that the jury's failure to award damages for pain and suffering to plaintiff was unreasonable, granting a new trial solely on those damages, while upholding the denial of damages for the wife's derivative claim.

Construction Site AccidentPersonal InjuryLabor LawNegligenceJury VerdictDamagesPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical ExpensesAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. 79 Civ. 5379
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 15, 1980

Ninth Fed. Sav. & L. v. First Fed. Sav. & L.

This action arises from an agreement between Ninth Federal Savings and Loan Association of New York City and First Federal Savings and Loan Association of Gadsden County for the purchase of treasury securities. Ninth Federal alleged that First Federal's Controller, Henry Burnett, did not intend to honor the agreement if market conditions were unfavorable, stating a claim under the Securities and Exchange Act. The court addresses First Federal's challenge to personal jurisdiction over pendent state law breach of contract claims and Burnett's motion to transfer the case. The court affirms its jurisdiction over the state claims based on pendent jurisdiction and grants the motion to transfer the case to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida for convenience.

Securities FraudBreach of ContractPendent JurisdictionPersonal JurisdictionMotion to TransferForum Non ConveniensExtraterritorial ServiceSecurities Exchange ActRule 10b-5Long Arm Statute
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Todd Shipyards Corp. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Shipholding Workers of America, Local 39

This case involves a plaintiff who filed an action for a declaratory judgment under Section 301 of the Taft-Hartley Act, seeking to invalidate Article XXVII of a collective bargaining agreement as an illegal clause under Section 8(e) of the LMRDA and to stay arbitration. The defendant-union had filed a grievance claiming a violation of Article XXVII. The court first established jurisdiction, rejecting the defendant's argument that it lacked authority to determine an unfair labor practice in this context. The court then addressed the merits, interpreting Section 8(e) and the nature of subcontracting clauses. It determined that Article XXVII, which restricts subcontracting only when the employer's workforce is inadequate, is a primary clause aimed at protecting employees' job security and maintaining the integrity of their contract, rather than achieving a secondary boycott. Consequently, the court found the clause to be permissible and granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment while denying the plaintiff's motion.

Labor LawCollective BargainingDeclaratory JudgmentTaft-Hartley ActLMRDA Section 8(e)SubcontractingUnion GrievanceUnfair Labor PracticeSecondary Boycott ExceptionStatutory Interpretation
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Genuth & S. B. Thomas, Inc.

The case involves a dispute between parties to a collective bargaining agreement regarding the application of the 'anti-pyramiding' clause concerning overtime and invasion of rest period pay. The core issue was whether the rest period was curtailed by overtime worked before it began or by an early return to work. The employer argued for the former, which would activate the anti-pyramiding clause, while the union advocated for the latter, negating the clause's impact and increasing worker pay. The arbitrator sided with the union's interpretation. The court subsequently denied the employer's motion to vacate the arbitration award and granted the union's cross-motion to confirm it, affirming that the arbitrator's interpretation was permissible and within his competence.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementanti-pyramiding clauseovertime payrest period paylabor disputearbitration award confirmationcontract interpretationarbitrator's competencejudicial review of arbitration
References
0
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. City of New York

Ernest Bush was injured in 1995 while working for Kiska Construction, who rented a manlift from Access Rentals. Bush sued Access Rentals and the City of New York. Access Rentals then commenced a third-party action against Kiska Construction, seeking contractual and common-law indemnification. The court initially denied Access Rentals' motion for summary judgment on contractual indemnification as premature, citing unresolved issues related to General Obligations Law § 5-322.1. Access Rentals moved to reargue, arguing that a 'to the fullest extent permitted by law' clause in their agreement with Kiska removed it from the statute's proscriptive ambit. The court granted reargument and, upon reargument, found the saving clause valid, thereby granting Access Rentals conditional summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against Kiska Construction.

Contractual IndemnificationGeneral Obligations Law § 5-322.1Summary JudgmentReargument MotionConstruction AccidentManlift MalfunctionNegligence LiabilityPartial IndemnificationIndemnity Saving ClauseSpoliation of Evidence
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2001

MacRo v. Independent Health Ass'n, Inc.

Plaintiffs Cheryl Macro and Kim Zastrow, insured under a group health contract with Independent Health through the Tonawanda City School District, initiated a class action in state court to challenge Independent Health's modification of infertility treatment coverage. Defendant Independent Health removed the case to federal court, asserting ERISA preemption. Plaintiffs moved to remand, arguing that their claims fell under New York Insurance Law, which is exempt from ERISA preemption by the saving clause, and that their health plan qualified as a 'governmental plan' also exempt from ERISA. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion, concluding that the claims were indeed saved from ERISA preemption and that the plan was exempt, thus rendering federal subject matter jurisdiction absent. The court accordingly remanded the case back to New York State Supreme Court.

Infertility CoverageHealth Insurance DisputesERISA PreemptionSaving ClauseGovernmental PlansRemoval to Federal CourtSubject Matter JurisdictionNew York Insurance LawClass Action LitigationEmployee Benefits Plan
References
31
Showing 1-10 of 719 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