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 South Shore Tobacco & Candy Co.

The coassignees moved for an order settling their final account, fixing their commissions, and granting allowances to their attorneys and accountants. Arthur Kerner, Esq., representing himself and unsecured creditors, opposed the requested amounts, deeming them excessive and questioning the administration of the estate. The court had previously denied the motion and requested additional documentation and explanations. After reviewing new submissions and the case file, the court largely sided with the objector, significantly reducing the requested commissions and fees for the coassignees, their attorneys, and accountants based on established guidelines for economy and efficiency in estate administration.

Assignment for Benefit of CreditorsCommissionsAttorneys' FeesAccountants' FeesEstate AdministrationDebtor and Creditor LawJudicial ReviewCompensation GuidelinesFiduciary DutiesObjections to Fees
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kornrich

Philip J. Shore, beneficiary of an inter vivos trust, through his guardian ad litem, sought the removal of trustee Georgina Vassiliou, Esq., for her failure to account as directed by a prior court order. Vassiliou, who drafted the trust instrument naming herself as grantor and trustee, argued that the trust terms exempted her from accounting during the beneficiary's lifetime. The court found that such a provision, attempting to render a fiduciary unaccountable, is void as against public policy, as expressed in EPTL 11-1.7, and applies equally to inter vivos trusts where beneficiaries cannot protect their interests. The court also denied Vassiliou's motion to dismiss the guardian's petition and her requests for reargument or renewal, finding them procedurally defective and lacking merit. Ultimately, the court granted the application for Vassiliou's removal as trustee and for permission to take and state her account, while denying all of Vassiliou's motions.

Inter Vivos TrustTrustee RemovalFiduciary DutyAccountingPublic PolicyEPTL 11-1.7Guardian ad LitemBeneficiary RightsProfessional EthicsSurrogate's Court
References
18
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Bricker

In an accounting proceeding, the Department of Social Services (DSS) of the City of New York sought summary judgment for the reimbursement of Medicaid benefits totaling $34,913.44 paid to Montefiore Hospital on behalf of the decedent. The central legal question, one of first impression, was whether the decedent's estate or the hospital should bear the cost of hospital care incurred during a period when the decedent's discharge was delayed. This delay was caused by the hospital's unsuccessful petition for conservatorship, alleging the decedent's incompetence. The court, drawing an analogy to Mental Hygiene Law Article 81 guardianship proceedings, determined that such costs could be proportionally allocated. Weighing equitable considerations, the court partially granted DSS's motion for summary judgment, awarding $26,000, and denied the executrix's cross-motion.

Medicaid BenefitsAccounting ProceedingSummary JudgmentConservatorshipDischarge PlanningUnjust EnrichmentEquitable ConsiderationsSocial Services LawMental Hygiene LawHospital Liability
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

President & Directors of the Manhattan Co. v. Janowitz

Julius Janowitz created an inter vivos trust in 1933, subsequently modified four times. Following his death in 1937, the trustee initiated an action for judicial settlement of accounts, while his widow, Emma S. Janowitz, challenged the will and trust validity based on her rights under the Decedent Estate Law. The court addressed whether later trust amendments could be incorporated by reference into the will and if the trust was illusory. It affirmed the validity of the will's third paragraph, incorporating the initial trust and the first three amendments but excluding the fourth. Although the trust was found to be illusory against the widow's rights due to donor control, the court ultimately upheld the trust's overall validity, nullifying only the third amendment's $5,000 annual income limitation for the widow to safeguard her interests. An interlocutory decree was issued.

Inter Vivos TrustWill ContestDecedent Estate LawRight of ElectionIllusory TrustIncorporation by ReferenceTrust AmendmentWidow's RightsEstate PlanningTestamentary Disposition
References
11
Case No. ADJ8752928
Regular
Feb 23, 2016

BRAD MITCHELL vs. MARILYN GREENBERG LOAN ACCOUNTS, AAA NORTHERN CALIFORNIA INSURANCE EXCHANGE, administered by TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT

This case is dismissed because the Applicant's Petition for Reconsideration was unverified, violating Labor Code section 5902 and related regulations. The Applicant was given notice of this defect and a reasonable time to cure it, but failed to do so. Additionally, the petition lacked the required proof of service. If not for the procedural defect, the petition would have been denied on its merits.

Petition for ReconsiderationUnverified PetitionVerification RequirementLabor Code Section 5902Lucena v. Diablo Auto BodySignificant Panel DecisionWCJ ReportProof of ServiceLabor Code Section 5905Workers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
1
Case No. ADJ8223018
Regular
Sep 30, 2014

GERARDO VARGAS vs. ACCOUNTABILITY INCORPORATED, administered by LUMBERMEN'S UNDERWRITING ALLIANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for removal filed by Accountability Incorporated. The dismissal was primarily due to a lack of proper verification on the petition. Even if it had been verified, the WCAB indicated it would have denied the petition on its merits, adopting the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge. Therefore, the petition for removal was officially dismissed.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ ReportLack of VerificationDismissalCal Code Regs tit 8 § 10843(b)Deny on the MeritsAdministrative Law JudgeAccountability IncorporatedLumbermen's Underwriting Alliance
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelly v. Cesarano, Haque & Khan, P. C.

Plaintiff sued an accounting firm for malpractice, alleging negligent advice regarding estate taxes which led her to pay $32,761. The defendant moved to dismiss the action, arguing it was barred by the three-year Statute of Limitations (CPLR 214 [6]). The plaintiff's claim accrued on April 14, 1994, before the amendment to CPLR 214 (6) which shortened the limitation period from six to three years for such claims. While prior rulings allowed a six-year period if the suit was commenced before the amendment's effective date, the court found the plaintiff's filing on October 29, 1997, was untimely. The court determined that even with a reasonable grace period post-amendment, the plaintiff failed to file within the three-year limit or a reasonable six-month window after the amendment's effective date, thus granting the defendant's motion to dismiss.

Accountant MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentBreach of ContractNegligence ClaimEstate Tax LiabilityMotion to DismissTimeliness of ActionRetroactive ApplicationDue Process Considerations
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Muccini

The Surrogate's Court considered a petition to compromise a wrongful death action and settle the administratrix's account. The decedent, a construction foreman, was fatally injured in 1980, survived by his spouse and four sons. A structured settlement was reached with multiple defendants for a court-determined present value of $1,246,578. The court approved the settlement but modified the distribution of proceeds to align with the Kaiser formula and addressed attorneys' fees. It ruled that attorneys' fees should be paid proportionally with the structured settlement receipts, rather than a large upfront sum, to protect the distributees' interests, especially the minor children, and directed proper handling of funds for infant distributees.

Wrongful DeathStructured SettlementAttorneys' FeesInfant DistributeesEstate AdministrationKaiser FormulaSurrogate's CourtGuardian ad litemPresent ValueSettlement Distribution
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leyh v. Property Clerk of the City of New York Police Department

Plaintiff Evelyn Leyh initiated a federal action against the New York City Police Department and its Property Clerk, seeking the return of her seized automobile and alleging constitutional violations. She claimed deprivation of property without due process, that the forfeiture provision of the New York City Administrative Code constituted a bill of attainder, and malicious prosecution. While a state court had previously ruled in her favor regarding the forfeiture, the federal court addressed her remaining claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due process and bill of attainder claims, upholding the constitutionality of the property seizure procedures based on prior federal rulings. Additionally, the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it as all federal claims had been resolved.

Due ProcessBill of AttainderMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentCivil ForfeitureAutomobile Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Supplemental JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law Claims
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 640 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