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
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

This case arises from allegations that the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department subjected Latino individuals to discriminatory policing, including illegal traffic stops, unjustified checkpoints, and 'stop and rob' schemes. The plaintiffs, referred to as 'Plaintiffs #1-21,' filed a motion to proceed anonymously, citing fears of retaliation and deportation. The court granted this motion, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, particularly against Defendant Scott Greene, who is also facing criminal charges related to the 'stop and rob' scheme. Additionally, the court ordered a stay of discovery solely with respect to Defendant Greene, balancing his Fifth Amendment rights against the plaintiffs' interest in an expeditious resolution. Discovery is permitted to proceed against other defendants, and a protective order for limited disclosure of plaintiffs' identities will be submitted.

Discriminatory policingRacial profilingFourth Amendment rights violationFifth Amendment rights violationFourteenth Amendment rights violation42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims42 U.S.C. § 2000d claimsAnonymous plaintiffsStay of proceedingsSelf-incrimination
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yoda, LLC v. National Union Fire Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially denied defendant National Union Fire's motion to dismiss the complaint and granted plaintiffs' cross motion for summary judgment, declaring the insurer’s disclaimer of coverage ineffective under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The appellate court unanimously modified this order, denying the cross motion for summary judgment without prejudice to renewal after discovery, citing the lack of conducted discovery. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of National Union’s motion to dismiss, noting lingering questions regarding the parties' intentions, the terms of the subcontract, and National Union’s delay in disclaiming coverage, which prevent a determination that Yoda and Riverhead were not additional insureds. Additionally, the employers’ liability exclusion in National Union's policy was found unavailing, as liability would be indirect if Yoda and Riverhead are determined to be additional insureds.

Insurance CoverageDisclaimer of CoverageSummary JudgmentMotion to DismissAdditional Insured StatusEmployers' Liability ExclusionAppellate ReviewDiscovery ProceedingsSubcontract TermsLabor Law Litigation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eaton v. Chahal

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Trapani v. 10 Arial Way Associates

Cesare Trapani, an employee of P & W Electric, Inc., was injured at a construction site owned by 10 Arial Way Associates and managed by The Marcus Organization, Inc. Both property owner and manager sought defense and indemnification as additional insureds under an insurance policy issued by Assurance Company of America to P & W. A Judicial Hearing Officer initially found them to be additional insureds, a finding upheld by the Supreme Court which denied summary judgment to P & W and Assurance. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court determined that the work contract did not expressly or specifically require additional insured coverage, and a certificate of insurance alone was insufficient. Consequently, the motions by P & W Electric, Inc. and Assurance Company of America were granted, the cross-motions by 10 Arial Way Associates and The Marcus Organization, Inc. were denied, and a judgment was entered declaring that the latter are not entitled to insurance coverage as additional insureds.

Additional InsuredInsurance PolicyContract InterpretationSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentConstruction Site InjuryThird-Party LiabilityCertificate of Insurance ValidityWork ContractAppellate Procedure
References
11
Case No. ADJ8675755
Regular
Dec 30, 2014

MARIA MATA vs. PARK VIEW GARDENS, SAFETY NATIONAL CASUALTY CORPORATION, YORK SERVICES GROUP, INC.

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by the defendants, Park View Gardens and Safety National Casualty Corporation. The defendants sought removal of an interlocutory order allowing applicant Maria Mata to conduct further discovery related to additional claimed body parts. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and that reconsideration would be an adequate remedy. The Administrative Law Judge's report recommended denial, noting the defendants' prior awareness of the additional body parts and their lack of timely objection to discovery.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalInterlocutory OrderSignificant PrejudiceIrreparable HarmReconsiderationFinal OrderDeclaration of ReadinessOff CalendarFurther Discovery
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2005

Ackerman Mechanical Services, Inc. v. Hayes

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Erie County, concerning discovery matters. The plaintiff had sued the defendant for alleged conversion of payments, and the defendant counterclaimed for breach of contract on seven specific projects. The defendant sought to compel discovery of financial records for all projects they worked on for the plaintiff, not just the seven disputed ones. The Supreme Court initially granted this broad discovery, but upon appeal, it was determined that the court erred in compelling discovery for projects not subject to the litigation. Consequently, the order was modified to deny the defendant's motion for discovery of records unrelated to the specific litigated projects. Additionally, the court erred in denying the plaintiff's motion for a protective order concerning a subpoena for bank records.

DiscoveryBreach of ContractConversion of PaymentsLien LawSubpoena Duces TecumProtective OrderAppellate ReviewConstruction LawFinancial RecordsCounterclaim
References
1
Case No. Index No. 23434/19|Appeal No. 5904|Case No. 2025-00403
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2026

Santacruz v. 58 Gerry St LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order denying defendants' motion to amend their answer, vacate the note of issue, and compel additional discovery. Defendants sought to assert an affirmative defense and counterclaim for fraud based on an unrelated federal RICO complaint alleging a conspiracy by plaintiff's former attorneys and medical providers. The Supreme Court denied the motion to amend and to vacate the note of issue. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order to grant defendants' motion for additional discovery, specifically ordering plaintiff to appear for further deposition regarding the RICO action, without vacating the note of issue, and otherwise affirmed the Supreme Court's decision. The court reasoned that while the fraud allegations were unproven and insufficient for an affirmative defense, further deposition was warranted.

Fraud AllegationsRICO ActionDiscovery DisputeFurther DepositionMotion to AmendNote of IssueAppellate ReviewAffirmative DefenseCounterclaimWorkers' Compensation Claims
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

LaVigna v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for discovery and to amend the complaint. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order. The claims against Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. were dismissed due to the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity rule, as plaintiff Robert LaVigna was an employee. Plaintiffs failed to show deliberate conduct to bypass this rule or wanton behavior for punitive damages. Additionally, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. had knowledge of a defective condition causing fume seepage. The denial of additional discovery was upheld due to lack of diligence, and the motion to add J.T. Falk as a defendant was denied due to the Statute of Limitations and plaintiffs' investigative delinquency.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentDiscoveryComplaint AmendmentStatute of LimitationsUnited in Interest DoctrinePunitive DamagesPremises LiabilityFume ExposureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. ADJ7269617
Regular
Nov 28, 2011

LARRY MCATEE vs. WOLSELEY MANAGEMENT, INC dba FERGUSON ENTERPRISES, INC, PACIFIC EMPLOYERS INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant's claims for specific and cumulative trauma industrial injuries to his back and nervous system. The defendant petitioned for removal and reconsideration after the administrative law judge (WCJ) closed discovery. Parties subsequently agreed to conduct additional discovery, which the WCJ acknowledged and recommended rescinding the discovery closure order. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the discovery closure order, and dismissed the petition for reconsideration as moot.

RemovalReconsiderationClosing DiscoveryRescinded OrderMandatory Settlement ConferencePetition for RemovalPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative Trauma
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 3,676 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