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

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Panio v. Sunderland

This case concerns appeals related to the validity of absentee and affidavit ballots from the November 2, 2004 general election for the 35th State Senatorial District, contested between Republican candidate Nicholas Spano and Democratic candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins. The court modified the Appellate Division's order, ruling that 163 affidavit ballots cast in the correct polling site but wrong election district, 45 absentee ballots by poll workers, and 20 affidavit ballots with missing election district information, all due to ministerial errors by the Board of Elections, must be counted. Conversely, 457 affidavit ballots cast at the wrong polling place and three affidavit ballots where votes were already recorded for those voters were properly excluded. The decision emphasizes balancing statutory duties with voter rights, ensuring that ministerial errors do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

election lawballot validityaffidavit ballotsabsentee ballotsministerial errorvoter disenfranchisementpolling siteelection districtNew York State Senateelection dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yax v. Development Team, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which denied his motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability concerning alleged violations of Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6). The appellate court affirmed the order. Regarding the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, the defendant successfully raised a triable issue of fact, supported by Angelo Kambitsis's affidavit, suggesting the plaintiff might have been a recalcitrant worker. The Supreme Court's consideration of Kambitsis's affidavit was deemed a provident exercise of discretion, despite his non-disclosure as a witness, as the plaintiff had prior knowledge of his existence and the defendant offered an excuse for the oversight. For the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, while the defendant's expert affidavit was inadmissible due to non-disclosure, Kambitsis's affidavit was still sufficient to create a triable issue of fact concerning the reasonableness and adequacy of the worksite conditions.

Personal InjuryLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary Judgment MotionAppellate AffirmanceRecalcitrant Worker DefenseDiscovery RulesExpert Testimony AdmissibilityAffidavit EvidenceProximate Cause
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Torriero v. Olin Corp.

Plaintiff Loretta Torriero, a former Olin Corporation employee, sued Olin and two supervisors for sex discrimination and sexual harassment under Title VII. Defendants moved for summary judgment and to strike plaintiff's attorney's affidavit. The court granted the motion to strike the attorney's affidavit but accepted plaintiff's subsequent affidavit. The court then granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the sexual harassment claims due to failure to allege them in the EEOC charge, and dismissing the sex discrimination claims because the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case. The court declined to award attorney's fees to the defendants, finding the claims, while meritless, were not brought in bad faith.

Title VIISex DiscriminationSexual HarassmentSummary JudgmentEEOC ChargePrima Facie CaseEmployment LawFederal CourtAffidavitTimely Filing
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ritz-Craft Corp. of PA, Inc. v. National Electrical Benefit Fund (In re Elm Ridge Associates)

The current case is an appeal before District Judge McMahon, concerning a dispute between Ritz-Craft Corporation (plaintiff-appellant) and National Electrical Benefit Fund (defendant-appellant). Ritz-Craft sought to subordinate NEBF's secured mortgage lien to its subsequently filed mechanics' lien, arguing NEBF filed a materially false affidavit under New York Lien Law § 22. The Bankruptcy Court had previously granted summary judgment to Ritz-Craft, finding a material defect in NEBF's affidavit regarding sums available for improvement. However, the District Court reversed this decision, ruling that the "net sum available to the borrower for the improvement" as per Lien Law § 22 can include funds already expended on improvements prior to the affidavit's filing. The court also clarified that compliance with Lien Law § 2.5 regarding "cost of improvement" is not relevant to the requirements of Section 22. Consequently, the District Court granted summary judgment to NEBF, dismissing Ritz-Craft’s complaint.

Lien LawMechanics' LienBuilding Loan ContractConstruction LoanMortgage SubordinationMaterially False AffidavitSummary JudgmentBankruptcy AppealReal Estate DevelopmentCost of Improvement
References
6
Case No. ADJ8 453844
Regular
Jun 15, 2016

ISOBETH CABRERA vs. LABOR READY, ESIS

This case involves a lien claimant seeking reconsideration of a dismissed lien. The lien was dismissed because the claimant failed to appear at a lien conference and subsequently file a properly verified objection detailing the excusable neglect. While the Board granted reconsideration, it intends to affirm the dismissal unless the claimant provides a sworn affidavit from a person with personal knowledge explaining the circumstances of the failure to appear. This affidavit must sufficiently detail the mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LienNotice of Intention to Dismiss Lienverified objectionCode of Civil Procedure section 473Fox v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.Beverly Hills Multispecialty Group Inc. v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.failure to appear
References
6
Case No. ADJ1 149112 (VNO 0348507) ADJ3447806 (VNO 0382613)
Regular
Oct 23, 2015

Debra Fraley vs. Santa Clarita Health Care Association, CIGA by its servicing facility, Broadspire, for Superior Pacific Casualty Company in liquidation

This case involves a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration of a prior denial of their petition. The lien claimant argued the Appeals Board erred in finding they misrepresented the contents of a Stipulations with Request for Award because the defendant failed to serve the Lien Affidavit with the Amended Award. The Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the lien claimant was in possession of both the Stipulations and the Lien Affidavit prior to the Amended Award. Even if service was deficient, the lien claimant had other recourse and failed to articulate sufficient legal or factual grounds for reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationAmended AwardStipulations with Request for AwardLien AffidavitAttorneys' FeesMisrepresentationService of Documents
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gagen v. Kipany Productions, Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a Labor Law article 6 claim, specifically whether the plaintiff, Gagen, was an employee or an independent contractor of Kipany Productions, Inc. The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted based on evidence from the plaintiff's tax returns. These returns showed the plaintiff claiming deductions consistent with independent contractor status, contradicting a previous affidavit. Due to these significant conflicts, the self-serving affidavit was disregarded. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment was affirmed by the appellate court.

Employment lawIndependent contractorOvertime compensationSummary judgmentTax returnsAffidavitEvidentiary conflictAppellate reviewLabor Law Article 6Worker classification
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2010

Morrison Cohen LLP v. Fink

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment awarding the plaintiff $254,023.70 against the defendant. The court had previously granted the plaintiff's motion for a default judgment and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss the complaint, which alleged improper service. The appellate court found that the defendant's opposition to the default judgment was insufficient because he submitted an affirmation instead of an affidavit and relied on an affidavit notarized by himself, a party to the action. Furthermore, the defendant failed to demonstrate that he did not personally receive timely notice of the summons, precluding relief under CPLR 317.

Default JudgmentImproper ServiceAffirmation vs AffidavitNotarization by PartyCPLR 308(4)CPLR 317Civil ProcedureMotion to DismissAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. 69 Civ. 200 (DNE)
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This memorandum addresses International Business Machines Corporation's (IBM) request for Judge David N. Edelstein to recuse himself from further proceedings in U. S. v. IBM. IBM filed an affidavit alleging the judge had personal bias and prejudice, and that the court lacked jurisdiction following a stipulation of dismissal on January 8, 1982. The court asserts its jurisdiction to determine its own authority, citing precedent. The memorandum concludes that IBM's recusal request is without merit, citing reasons such as it being a second such affidavit in the case, its untimeliness, and the failure to demonstrate an extrajudicial bias. Consequently, the request for recusal is denied.

Recusal MotionJudicial BiasJurisdiction DisputeTunney Act ApplicabilityAntitrust ProceduresStipulation of DismissalAmicus Curiae InterventionTimeliness of MotionCode of Judicial ConductFederal Procedure
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 269 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