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

In Re New York City Off-Track Betting Corp.

Finger Lakes Racing Association and Empire Resorts, Inc. moved to compel New York City Off-Track Betting Corporation (OTB) to pay post-petition statutory distributions under the New York Racing, Pari-Mutuel Wagering and Breeding Law, arguing they were mandated and qualified as administrative expenses. The Court denied administrative expense status, reasoning that no "estate" exists in Chapter 9 cases to incur such expenses. Citing ambiguity in the state's Racing Law, paramount federalism concerns, and the regulatory authority of the New York State Racing and Wagering Board, the Court abstained from ruling on the specific payment schedule for these distributions. Consequently, the automatic stay was lifted, and the parties were ordered to seek a determination from the Racing and Wagering Board and engage in mediation to resolve the ongoing disputes regarding OTB's restructuring and statutory payments.

Bankruptcy CourtChapter 9 DebtorMunicipal LawState RegulationOff-Track BettingHorse Racing IndustryStatutory InterpretationJudicial AbstentionComity and FederalismAdministrative Claims
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of Mariah Corrigan v. New York State Office of Children and Family Services

This case addresses whether a statutory procedure for early expungement of child abuse reports applies when parents are assigned to the Family Assessment Response (FAR) track under Social Services Law § 427-a, rather than undergoing a formal investigation. Petitioners sought to expunge records related to an educational neglect report handled via the FAR track, arguing for parity with the traditional investigative track which allows for early expungement of unfounded reports. The Supreme Court and Appellate Division both rejected this, holding that the legislature intentionally omitted such a provision in the FAR statute to maintain its non-adversarial, service-oriented approach. The Court of Appeals affirmed, emphasizing that statutory construction dictates that a legislative omission is intentional and that resolving policy concerns is a task for the legislature. The court further noted that petitioners' constitutional claim was not properly preserved for review.

Child abuseEducational neglectFamily Assessment Response (FAR)Social Services LawStatutory constructionLegislative intentExpungement of recordsAdministrative reviewAppellate practiceCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 1007
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2007

MATTER OF GREENE COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Ward

Dawn Ward adopted Jeffrey, a special needs child with severe behavioral and developmental issues, and received a monthly adoption subsidy. When Jeffrey's behavior escalated, posing safety risks, Ms. Ward attempted a temporary relinquishment of parental rights to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). GCDSS, however, only allowed a permanent surrender, which Ms. Ward accepted. Subsequently, GCDSS initiated a petition for child support against Ms. Ward, who challenged the obligation on grounds of statutory exception and equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that as an adoptive parent, Ms. Ward retained the financial support obligation, and the specific statutory exception for unwed biological mothers did not apply to her. The court also highlighted GCDSS's failure to provide Ms. Ward with required notifications and access to support services, although these omissions did not alter the child support ruling in this case.

Adoption LawChild Support ObligationParental RightsSpecial Needs ChildrenSocial Services LawEquitable EstoppelNew York Court of AppealsFamily LawChild WelfareVoluntary Surrender
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sara Lee Corp. v. Bags of New York, Inc.

Sara Lee Corporation filed an action claiming defendants produced and sold counterfeit trademarked Coach Leatherware products, violating the Trademark Act of 1946. Following defendants' failure to respond, a default judgment was entered, and the court retained jurisdiction to determine damages. Despite court orders, seizures, and civil contempt findings, defendant Nabil Helou and his associated businesses persisted in their counterfeiting activities. The court, noting the defendants' willful infringement, efforts to mislead, and defiance of deterrence, awarded Sara Lee $750,000 in statutory damages and $46,045.63 in attorney fees and costs.

Trademark InfringementCounterfeitingStatutory DamagesAttorney FeesWillful InfringementDefault JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDeterrencePunitive DamagesCivil Contempt
References
15
Case No. ADJ2953360
Regular
Sep 02, 2009

Leticia Rivera vs. Sylvia Naman, Underwriters at Lloyds, London

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed two petitions for reconsideration filed by lien claimants. The petitions were dismissed due to failure to comply with statutory verification requirements and failure to file proof of service. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that the petitions were unverified or defectively verified, and that the failure to serve the defendant was a substantive omission. Consequently, all disallowed liens remained disallowed.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationLien ClaimantsDisallowed LiensLabor Code SectionsExcusable NeglectStamped SignatureVerification DefectProof of ServiceDismissal of Petition
References
4
Case No. SAL 108801
Regular
Mar 07, 2008

STEVEN G. CARR vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's petition for reconsideration because it was filed late, exceeding the statutory 25-day deadline. Although the applicant argued for excusable neglect regarding the omission of a self-procured medical treatment claim, the Board found the timeliness of the petition to be a jurisdictional defect. Consequently, the Appeals Board lacks the authority to consider the merits of the applicant's claim for self-procured medical treatment.

WCABDeputy SheriffCumulative InjuryIndustrial HypertensionPermanent DisabilityApportionmentSelf-Procured Medical TreatmentExcusable NeglectPetition for ReconsiderationUntimely Petition
References
4
Case No. ADJ6537787
Regular
Apr 08, 2013

LUIS RAMOS vs. WESTEND STAFFING SOLUTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a lien claimant, Long Beach Medical Center, whose petition for reconsideration was dismissed by the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board. The dismissal was based on multiple procedural deficiencies: the petition was skeletal, lacked a legally valid verification, and failed to provide proper proof of service on the defendant and other parties. The Board emphasized that failure to serve parties is a substantive omission, and an unverified petition also fails to meet statutory requirements. Therefore, the Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalLien ClaimantSkeletal PetitionLack of VerificationProof of ServiceWCJLabor Code section 5902Labor Code section 5903
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGill v. Qudsi

This case addresses liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for a plaintiff who fell from a ladder while removing a second-story window. The court clarified that while the ladder itself might have been adequate for elevation, the defendant's failure to provide a separate safety device for handling and lowering the 40-50 pound window constituted a distinct elevation-related hazard. This omission was found to be a statutory violation and the proximate cause of the plaintiff's accident. The court further emphasized that claims of the plaintiff's contributory negligence or carelessness were irrelevant to establishing liability under Labor Law § 240 (1). The lower court's order was affirmed.

Labor Law Section 240(1)Elevation HazardLadder FallWindow Removal AccidentSafety Device FailureProximate CauseContributory Negligence ImmaterialStatutory ViolationWorkplace InjuryConstruction Site Safety
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brang Co. v. State University Construction Fund

The plaintiff, a contractor, sued the State University Construction Fund for damages, alleging negligence for failing to include prevailing wage schedules in bid specifications as required by Labor Law § 220. The plaintiff claimed this omission forced them to pay higher wages than anticipated. Special Term initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability. However, the appellate court reversed this decision. It found that both parties had ignored the statutory scheme, and the plaintiff failed to object to the missing wage schedule before signing the contract. The court concluded that the plaintiff could not recover for its own carelessness by not acquiring information available by law before bidding, thereby dismissing the complaint and granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic ContractsLabor Law ViolationsContract BreachSummary Judgment ReversalContractor NegligenceBid SpecificationsStatutory DutyDamages ClaimState University Construction Fund
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Becerra v. Promenade Apartments Inc.

In this dissenting opinion, Judge DeGrasse argues against the majority's implicit finding of liability under Labor Law § 241 (6), which was predicated on Industrial Code (12 NYCRR) § 23-1.5 (c) (3). The plaintiff, a demolition worker, was injured by an angle grinder lacking a guard. Judge DeGrasse contends that Industrial Code § 23-1.5 (c) (3) is a general safety standard and does not specifically mandate guarding for grinders, unlike saws which are explicitly covered in § 23-1.12 (c) (1). Applying statutory construction principles, the dissent concludes that the omission of grinder guarding requirements in the Industrial Code signifies an intentional exclusion, thus precluding liability under the invoked provision.

Labor Law Section 241(6)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.5(c)(3)Industrial Code 12 NYCRR 23-1.12(c)(1)Angle Grinder InjuryDemolition WorkerStatutory InterpretationRegulatory InterpretationSafety Device RequirementsMachinery GuardingDissenting Opinion
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,210 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