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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Templeton v. Veterans Administration

The plaintiff, a probationary federal employee, filed a pro se complaint against the Veterans Administration’s Medical Center, alleging racial discrimination under Title VII and challenging his discharge on other grounds. The court found venue improper for the discrimination claim, noting it should be in California or Missouri based on statutory provisions. For the non-discrimination claim, the court determined the plaintiff failed to show procedural defects or arbitrary action in his dismissal, as the VA followed established regulations and provided rational bases for termination. Consequently, the non-discrimination claim was dismissed, and the discrimination claim was transferred to the Central District of California due to improper venue.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIFederal EmploymentVenueProbationary EmployeeWrongful DischargeDue ProcessProperty InterestLiberty InterestAdministrative Decision
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Funeral Directors Ass'n v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, including the Metropolitan Funeral Directors Association, John C. Sommese, Anthony J. Martino, Hess-Miller Funeral Home, Inc., and Simonson Funeral Home, Inc., initiated an action seeking a declaratory judgment against the City of New York, the New York City Department of Consumer Affairs (DCA), and Commissioner Jules Polonetsky. The plaintiffs challenged four recently amended DCA rules (5-162, 5-164, 5-165, 5-166) pertaining to the regulation of the funeral home industry. They contended that these rules were preempted by State law, exceeded the Commissioner's authority, lacked a legitimate government purpose, were unconstitutionally vague, and were arbitrary and capricious. Additionally, plaintiffs sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the enforcement of these rules, arguing that their implementation would cause irreparable harm to their businesses. Defendants countered that the rules were consumer-protective, a rational exercise of authority, and consistent with State law, citing a February 1999 DCA investigation report titled "The High Cost of Dying." The court, presided over by Justice Richard F. Braun, denied the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, concluding that they failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable injury, or a favorable balance of equities. The court also noted the plaintiffs' incomplete statement as required by CPLR 6001.

Funeral Home RegulationConsumer ProtectionDeclaratory JudgmentPreliminary InjunctionState PreemptionLocal OrdinancesAdministrative LawStatutory AuthorityUnconstitutionally VagueArbitrary and Capricious
References
21
Case No. ADJ7038469
Regular
Sep 17, 2014

AZIZA SAYED vs. GIORGIO ARMANI, FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The defendant's petition to appeal an Administrative Director's Independent Bill Review (IBR) determination was dismissed. The Board found the petition premature as it was not first heard by a trial level Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). Additionally, the petition failed to comply with numerous procedural requirements, including proper captioning, verification, service, and stating specific grounds for appeal. Consequently, both the petition for reconsideration and the petition appealing the IBR determination were dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Bill ReviewPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative DirectorLabor Code section 4603.6MAXIMUS Federal ServicesInc.Lien claimantOfficial Medical Fee ScheduleWCAB Rules of Practice and Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slesin v. Administrator, Occupational Safety & Health Administration

Louis Slesin filed a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request seeking documents from the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) regarding the regulation of nonionizing radiation. OSHA released some documents but withheld portions of others, citing Exemption 5 of FOIA. Slesin cross-moved for an in camera inspection of the redactions and for summary judgment. District Judge Leval denied Slesin's cross-motion and granted summary judgment for the defendants. The court found that the redacted materials, which included staff opinions, recommendations, and internal timetables related to OSHA's deliberative process for developing new health standards, were properly withheld under Exemption 5, which protects internal agency communications reflecting deliberative or policy-making processes. The judge concluded that OSHA had adequately demonstrated that the excised material fell within the lawful exemption.

FOIAExemption 5Deliberative Process PrivilegeSummary JudgmentOccupational Safety and Health AdministrationNonionizing RadiationRegulatory StandardsAgency DeliberationsInformation DisclosureGovernment Transparency
References
10
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Desmond-Americana v. Jorling

This case involves five CPLR article 78 proceedings and declaratory judgment actions challenging amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, which mandated multiple pesticide notification devices. The petitioners challenged these regulations, promulgated by the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation, arguing the Commissioner exceeded his authority and that the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) failed to comply with statutory procedures. The Appellate Court found two main issues: first, DEC failed to adhere to the mandatory time limits for filing regulations under the State Administrative Procedure Act, rendering the amendments ineffective. Second, DEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by issuing negative declarations without preparing an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), despite clear evidence of significant adverse environmental impacts, particularly on the Integrated Pest Management (IPM) program. Consequently, the court annulled all amendments to 6 NYCRR part 325, declaring them invalid.

Administrative LawEnvironmental LawRegulatory ComplianceStatutory InterpretationState Administrative Procedure ActState Environmental Quality Review ActEnvironmental Impact StatementPesticide RegulationsIntegrated Pest ManagementAnnulment of Regulations
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 5,339 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