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. 2017 NY Slip Op 02891 [149 AD3d 505]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 2017

People v. Pimentel

The defendant appealed his conviction for attempted criminal possession of a weapon in the first degree as a crime of terrorism. The Appellate Division affirmed the judgment. The court found that while the defendant made a valid waiver of his right to appeal, his challenges to the statute defining "a crime of terrorism" were unwaivable. The court rejected claims of federal preemption, stating that congressional intent to preempt state legislation in counterterrorism was not shown. It also found the statute not unconstitutionally vague and upheld it against challenges under the Free Speech Clause, concluding that heightened punishment for criminal conduct with terrorist intent does not infringe on free speech.

Attempted Criminal PossessionWeaponCrime of TerrorismAppeal WaiverStatutory InterpretationFederal PreemptionConstitutional LawVagueness ChallengeFirst AmendmentFree Speech Clause
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Leitner

The government appealed a Magistrate's order granting bail to a defendant in an extradition proceeding. The defendant is wanted by Israel for multiple acts of terrorism, including attempted murder and arson, and fled to the U.S. after agreeing to testify against co-conspirators. The court emphasized that bail in extradition cases requires 'special circumstances' due to international relations and the serious nature of terrorism charges, applying stricter standards than domestic criminal cases. Finding no special hardship for the defendant and considering the flight risk and the importance of U.S.-Israel relations, the court reversed the Magistrate's decision, ordering the defendant to be held without bail.

ExtraditionBail AppealTerrorismFlight RiskInternational RelationsIsraelAttempted MurderArsonConspiracyMagistrate Reversal
References
4
Case No. 05-cv-4622 (consolidated with 07-cv-916)
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2016

Weiss v. National Westminster Bank PLC

This consolidated action involves approximately 200 individuals and estates, referred to as 'Plaintiffs,' who are suing National Westminster Bank PLC ('Defendant') under the civil liability provisions of the Anti-terrorism Act of 1992. Plaintiffs allege that the Defendant is liable for aiding and abetting terrorism, providing material support to Hamas, and unlawfully transmitting funds used for terrorist purposes in connection with 15 attacks in Israel and Palestine. The Defendant sought dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction or, alternatively, for summary judgment. The U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York denied both motions, concluding that the Defendant had waived its personal jurisdiction defense by not asserting it earlier after the Daimler Supreme Court decision. Furthermore, the court found that specific personal jurisdiction existed over the Defendant due to its deliberate and repeated use of New York's banking system for significant dollar transfers on behalf of an alleged Hamas front organization, and that exercising such jurisdiction complied with due process.

Anti-terrorism ActPersonal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentHamasTerrorism FinancingCorrespondent BankingDue Process
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Joseph

Justice Manzanet-Daniels dissents in part regarding a conviction for second-degree burglary. The dissent argues that the basement, which was entirely sealed off and inaccessible from the residences above, should not qualify as a 'dwelling' under the burglary statute, referencing legal precedents set in Quinn v People and People v McCray. The core argument is that the increased penalty for dwelling burglary is meant to prevent 'midnight terror' and 'danger to human life,' which do not apply when the burglarized area is remote and inaccessible from living quarters. The dissent emphasizes that the critical factor for determining a 'dwelling' is the close contiguity and accessibility between residential and nonresidential elements, not necessarily the building's size. Therefore, the conviction for second-degree burglary should be reversed.

BurglarySecond Degree BurglaryDwellingAccessibilityInaccessibilityLiving QuartersStatutory InterpretationCriminal LawProperty CrimeDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02597 [160 AD3d 807]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2018

Dube v. County of Rockland

Richard Dube, a police officer, suffered heat stroke during a physical fitness test for the Rockland Regional Rescue, Entry and Counter-Terrorism Team (REACT). He and his wife sued the County defendants and USPLabs, LLC, which manufactured a vitamin supplement Dube was taking. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the County defendants, determining Dube was a special employee and thus barred from suing under Workers' Compensation Law. However, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision on the plaintiffs' appeal. The appellate court found that the County defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to prove Dube was a special employee or to establish other grounds for summary judgment, thus denying their motion for summary judgment.

Special Employee DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary Judgment StandardsGovernmental ImmunityFirefighter's RulePrimary Assumption of RiskPolice Officer InjuryHeat StrokeAppellate ReviewBurden of Proof
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perduyn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The petitioner, represented by his Union, was found guilty of serious misconduct after a hearing before a single arbitrator, despite a collective bargaining agreement provision for three. The Supreme Court dismissed his CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate the arbitration award, ruling that the petitioner lacked standing to assert an individual claim against the employer and his sole remedy was a plenary action against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation. A concurring opinion by Asch, J., discusses the evolution of contract law, highlighting the shift from individual to collective bargaining and raising questions about judicial checks on power abuse by associations regarding their members. The opinion also notes the admission of extensive evidence concerning a 'Black Hand' terror campaign during the arbitration hearing.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Individual ClaimStandingDuty of Fair RepresentationContract LawUnion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Utility Workers Union v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

The Utility Workers Union of America (UWUA) challenged Section 606 of the Omnibus Diplomatic Security and Anti-Terrorism Act of 1986, which mandates fingerprint checks for unescorted access to nuclear facilities. The UWUA sought a declaratory judgment that the statute was unconstitutional and a preliminary injunction against the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission's (NRC) implementing regulation. The court dismissed the challenge to the NRC regulation due to lack of jurisdiction, ruling it a final order reviewable only by the Courts of Appeals under the Hobbs Act, and the action was untimely. Addressing the constitutional challenge to the statute, the court found that the fingerprinting requirement did not violate Fourth Amendment or privacy rights, deeming the intrusion minimal and rationally related to national security. Consequently, the plaintiff's motions were denied, and the defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.

Constitutional LawFourth AmendmentPrivacy RightsFingerprintingNuclear SecurityDeclaratory JudgmentInjunctive ReliefJurisdictionAtomic Energy ActHobbs Act
References
24
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06419 [154 AD3d 139]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 12, 2017

Matter of 91st St. Crane Collapse Litig.

The Appellate Division, First Department, reviewed consolidated wrongful death actions stemming from a 2008 crane collapse in Manhattan, which caused the deaths of Donald Christopher Leo and Ramadan Kurtaj. Plaintiffs, including Maria Leo and Xhevahire Sinanaj, sued James F. Lomma and his companies (J.F. Lomma, Inc. and New York Crane & Equipment Corp.) alleging negligence and reckless conduct related to a defective crane bearing. The court affirmed the jury's decision to pierce the corporate veil and to preclude a defense expert, finding Lomma personally liable due to his actions. However, the appellate court significantly reduced the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, conscious pain and suffering, and punitive damages, deeming them excessive. The judgment was modified, contingent on the plaintiffs stipulating to the reduced amounts.

Crane CollapseWrongful DeathCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExpert Testimony PreclusionNegligenceConstruction AccidentConscious Pain and SufferingPreimpact TerrorDefective Weld
References
33
Case No. 04-CV-5449
Regular Panel Decision

Litle v. Arab Bank, PLC

Thousands of U.S. and foreign nationals sued Arab Bank PLC under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA) and Alien Tort Claims Act (ATS), alleging the bank knowingly financed terrorist organizations responsible for attacks in Israel. Arab Bank, in turn, filed third-party complaints seeking contribution from other Israeli banks, claiming they also processed funds for "front" organizations. The court examined whether a right to contribution exists under the ATA or ATS. It concluded that Congress did not explicitly or implicitly create such a right under the ATA, nor should federal common law establish one, especially for intentional wrongdoers. Similarly, no basis was found to create a contribution right under the ATS. Therefore, the third-party defendants' motions to dismiss Arab Bank's contribution claims were granted, and the plaintiffs' motion to strike was dismissed as moot.

terrorism financingAnti-Terrorism ActAlien Tort Claims Actcontribution rightsfederal common lawtort liabilityinternational terrorismbank complicityMiddle East conflictterrorist organizations
References
18
Case No. 06-cv-702
Regular Panel Decision

Strauss v. Lyonnais

This is a consolidated action where over 200 Plaintiffs sued Crédit Lyonnais, S.A. under the Anti-terrorism Act, alleging the bank knowingly aided and abetted Hamas's terrorist activities in Israel and Palestine by providing material support and financing through its New York branch. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction or for summary judgment. The Court denied the motion, ruling that the personal jurisdiction defense was not waived due to intervening Supreme Court precedent (Daimler AG v. Bauman). The Court found sufficient specific personal jurisdiction over the Defendant through New York's long-arm statute and federal nationwide service of process, citing the bank's New York branch and five deliberate "New York Transfers" that were integral to the alleged unlawful conduct. The Court confirmed that exercising jurisdiction comported with constitutional due process.

Terrorism FinancingAnti-terrorism ActPersonal JurisdictionSpecific JurisdictionGeneral JurisdictionDue ProcessCorrespondent BankingNew York Long-Arm StatuteWaiver of DefenseFederal Rules of Civil Procedure
References
64
Showing 1-10 of 14 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