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

People v. Schulz

Judge Rosenblatt dissents in part from the Court's decision upholding the denial of a defendant's CPL 440.10 (1) (g) motion without a hearing. The dissent argues for a hearing due to the high possibility of the defendant's actual innocence. Key evidence includes the primary victim, Ruiz, submitting a post-trial affidavit stating she is 90% certain the robber was another individual, Guilfoyle, whose photograph was disallowed at trial. The dissent highlights the temporal and geographical proximity, and similar modus operandi of Guilfoyle's other crimes, contrasting with the majority's view of 'remoteness'. Rosenblatt asserts that Ruiz's affidavit, especially following a 'borderline ruling' on the photograph, is too significant to dismiss summarily, and a hearing could provide an 'additional measure of truth' and serve the 'higher ends of justice'.

Criminal LawPost-Conviction ReliefActual InnocenceCPL 440.10 MotionWitness IdentificationEvidentiary RulingDissenting OpinionModus OperandiAppellate ReviewJudicial Discretion
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc.

The Chapter 11 debtor, Thomson McKinnon Securities, Inc., moved to disallow James E. Parks' claim, arguing it was filed after the court-ordered bar date of October 30, 1990. Parks, a former customer, did not receive actual notice of the bar date, although the debtor was aware of his potential claim through letters from Legal Services. The court found that due process requires actual notice for known creditors and determined that the debtor had actual notice of Parks' asserted claim. Therefore, the court concluded that Parks was entitled to actual notice, which he did not receive, and granted an extension for his claim. Parks' proof of claim, filed on May 17, 1993, was deemed timely, and the debtor's motion to expunge was denied.

Bankruptcy LawProof of ClaimBar DateExcusable NeglectActual NoticeConstructive NoticeDue ProcessCreditors' RightsChapter 11Debtor in Possession
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. New York City Board of Education

This Memorandum & Order addresses a dispute arising from a settlement agreement between the United States and the New York City Board of Education. The agreement aimed to remedy employment discrimination, specifically testing and recruiting discrimination, against minority provisional hires by granting permanent appointments and retroactive seniority. The Court, having previously found sufficient evidence only for testing discrimination, focuses on two key issues: the intended categorization of beneficiaries and the "actual victim" status of certain individuals. The Court concludes that the parties intended to categorize beneficiaries, and relief for layoff protection purposes is limited to actual victims of testing discrimination. Specifically, Ricardo Cordero and Vernon Marshall are deemed actual victims, with Marshall's seniority date adjusted, while six other individuals failed to prove actual victim status for layoff protection. Consequently, certain black and Hispanic custodial employees who had not taken and failed a challenged exam are not entitled to retroactive seniority for any purpose under the Agreement.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIFourteenth AmendmentRetroactive SeniorityAffirmative ActionTesting DiscriminationRecruiting DiscriminationActual VictimsSettlement AgreementProvisional Hires
References
6
Case No. ADJ6937263
Regular
Sep 09, 2014

PAUL ESCUDERO vs. CISCO SYSTEMS, INC., ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Cisco Systems' petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's claim was not barred by the statute of limitations. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning that Cisco failed to prove the applicant had actual knowledge of his workers' compensation rights. Specifically, the employer did not provide legally required notices, and the applicant's vague consultation with a civil attorney did not constitute sufficient actual knowledge to start the statute of limitations. The Board also noted that actual knowledge cannot be imputed solely by an employee's representation by counsel.

Statute of limitationsTollingActual knowledgeWorkers' compensation rightsEmployer noticeCivil attorneyImputed knowledgePetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative law judge
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Bakery & Confectionery Workers' International Union of America

This case involves a review of a determination finding discrimination. The court affirmed the discrimination finding, stating it was based on substantial evidence. However, the Commissioner's calculation of damages was found to be erroneous. The original damage award for eight complainants was based on an hourly wage rate applicable to only one. The court modified the awards for complainants whose actual wages were less than the hourly wage rate used by the Commissioner, accepting their actual hourly wage rate and hours lost. Awards where actual wages exceeded the determined rate were not disturbed due to the absence of a cross-appeal.

DiscriminationDamagesWage RateErroneous ComputationJudicial ReviewModificationComplainantsHourly WageSubstantial EvidencePanel Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Daks Leasing Corp. v. Connell

This case addresses the sufficiency of personal service under CPLR 308 (2) in New York. The plaintiff attempted to serve the defendant by delivering the summons and complaint to the manager of a trailer park, but at a trailer other than the defendant's residence. The court examined whether the service location qualified as the defendant's "actual dwelling place" or "usual place of abode." Distinguishing from precedents where access to a defendant's actual residence was hindered (e.g., by a doorman), the court found no such impediment here. It concluded that the defendant's specific trailer, not the general trailer park, constituted the actual dwelling place. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the complaint due to lack of personal jurisdiction.

Personal JurisdictionService of ProcessCPLR 308 (2)Dwelling PlaceUsual Place of AbodeTrailer ParkMotion to DismissCivil ProcedureNew York LawStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hernandez v. Taco Bell, Inc.

The Special Disability Fund appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that allowed an employer's carrier reimbursement for concurrent employment benefits. The carrier had failed to file the mandatory form C-251.3, although the Fund had actual notice of the concurrent employment issue and participated in related stipulations. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board had affirmed reimbursement, citing the Fund's consent and actual notice. However, this appellate court reversed the decision and remitted the case, ruling that the Board had not adequately explained its departure from established precedent which typically required strict adherence to filing procedures for reimbursement claims, even when actual notice existed. The court emphasized the Board's need to justify such deviations from its own prior rulings.

Special Disability FundReimbursementConcurrent EmploymentWaiver DefenseForm C-251.3Board PrecedentAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationRemittalSchedule Loss of Use
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berner v. Town of Huntington

The court addressed the defendant's motion to reargue a previously denied summary judgment motion. The original denial stemmed from the court's finding that an exception to the prior written notice requirement for municipalities applied, as the defendant, Town of Huntington, had actual knowledge of a defective curb, had inspected it, and had slated it for repair. The defendant contended that recent Court of Appeals precedent, particularly Amabile v City of Buffalo, abrogated this 'actual notice and inspection' exception. However, the court distinguished Amabile by noting it concerned constructive notice and reaffirmed the vitality of the narrow exception for actual notice coupled with inspection. The court emphasized that the policy behind written notice laws is not to shield municipalities from liability for known and unaddressed defects, especially when a property owner has vigilantly reported the issue. Consequently, the court granted reargument but upheld its initial decision, allowing the plaintiff's claim to proceed.

Prior Written NoticeMunicipal LiabilityActual Notice ExceptionSummary JudgmentReargument MotionCurb DefectHighway LawTown LawGeneral Municipal LawSpecial Duty
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 1982

Cicio v. City of New York

The City of New York appealed an order that granted a sanitation employee's application for leave to serve a late notice of claim. The petitioner was severely injured in the line of duty on January 12, 1982, and his attorney served the notice of claim one day late due to inadvertence. Special Term granted the application for a late notice. The City argued that Special Term lacked discretion because the delay was inexcusable and that notice to the Sanitation Department should not be equated with actual knowledge by the City. The court affirmed the order, holding that statutory amendments to General Municipal Law § 50-e(5) are to be liberally construed and that all relevant factors, including prejudice and actual knowledge, must be considered. The court found the delay minimal, no prejudice to the City, and that the City obtained actual knowledge through an accident report. The court also admonished the City's counsel for failing to cite adverse controlling authorities in their brief.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawSection 50-eDiscretion of CourtActual KnowledgePrejudice to MunicipalityProfessional ObligationsAppellate PracticeAffirmancePer Curiam
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 884 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