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

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2015

People v. Kennard

This case involves an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of multiple counts of rape and endangering the welfare of a child. The defendant contended that the County Court erred by not suppressing statements made to police after an alleged invocation of the right to counsel. The appellate court agreed, finding that the defendant's statements, particularly "I need to," constituted an unequivocal request for legal assistance. Therefore, the judgment was reversed, the motion to suppress the illegally obtained statements was granted, and a new trial was ordered.

criminal lawsuppression motionright to counselMiranda rightscustodial interrogationunequivocal requestrapeendangering welfare of a childnew trialMonroe County Court
References
11
Case No. ADJ9400578
Regular
Sep 13, 2017

GERRIT VELD vs. CLIPPINGER CHEVROLET, GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE, INC., SAFECO INSURANCE

Defendant sought removal of this workers' compensation case, alleging the WCJ's statements showed bias against them and would cause prejudice. The Appeals Board denied the petition, agreeing with the WCJ that the statements were preliminary remarks based on submitted evidence. The Board emphasized that removal is an extraordinary remedy requiring proof of significant prejudice or irreparable harm, which the defendant failed to establish. Defendant also did not follow proper disqualification procedures.

Petition for RemovalWCJ biasirreparable harmpreliminary remarksformal disqualificationsignificant prejudiceWorkers' Compensation Appeals Boardindustrial injuryleukemiamechanic
References
1
Case No. ADJ4406096 (LAO 0784412)
Regular

JOSE MORFIN vs. WHITE MEMORIAL MEDICAL CENTER

Defendant sought removal from a WCJ's order stipulating to two Agreed Medical Evaluators (AMEs), alleging the WCJ "forced" the agreement. Applicant's attorney and the WCJ countered that defense counsel had agreed to and proposed the AMEs, with the WCJ merely documenting the stipulation. The Appeals Board denied removal as defendant showed no prejudice, but initiated its own removal to address the attorney's alleged false statements and vexatious tactics. Consequently, the Board intends to impose sanctions of up to $2,500 on the defendant and its attorneys for filing a frivolous petition containing misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalAgreed Medical EvaluatorsWCJSanctionsBad Faith TacticsFrivolousUnnecessary DelayStipulationMisrepresentation of Facts
References
1
Case No. ADJ10094198
Regular
Oct 26, 2017

JOSEPH BROOKS vs. EAST BAY MUNICIPAL UTILITY DISTRICT, ATHENS ADMINISTRATORS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the Workers' Compensation Judge's (WCJ) decision. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and agreed with the reliance on the agreed medical evaluator's opinion. The WCJ correctly found the applicant sustained a cumulative low back injury to July 27, 2015, distinct from a prior injury, and was entitled to temporary disability indemnity through March 1, 2017. Additionally, the Board admonished the defense attorney for filing a petition containing false or misleading statements.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility DeterminationAgreed Medical EvaluatorLabor Code Section 5813Cumulative Trauma InjuryTemporary Disability IndemnityEmployment Development DepartmentAgreed Medical Evaluator Deposition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Carew

The court considered two child abuse petitions filed by the Suffolk County Department of Social Services against a father, based on unsworn statements from his three and five-year-old children. The respondent father moved for psychiatric evaluations of the children and their mother to defend against the allegations, citing the need for expert assessment of the children's credibility. The court balanced the children's welfare against the father's right to a fair trial, noting the unique challenges of corroborating out-of-court statements in Article 10 proceedings. The court granted the father's request to the extent of ordering a validation interview for both children, stipulating a court-designated examiner if parties could not agree. The request for the mother's examination was denied due to insufficient justification.

Child AbuseFamily Court ActPsychiatric EvaluationChild CredibilityHearsay TestimonyCorroboration RequirementDue ProcessParental RightsSuffolk CountyUnsworn Statements
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Griswold

Defendant Griswold was convicted of murder in the second degree and arson after a retrial on a felony murder count where the initial jury had been unable to agree. Griswold appealed, contending that the retrial violated double jeopardy and that incriminating statements made to police were admitted in contravention of his right to counsel. The court affirmed the trial court's discretion in declaring a mistrial, thus rejecting the double jeopardy claim. However, applying recent precedents from People v Cunningham and People v Pepper retroactively, the court found that the jury instruction regarding the voluntariness of Griswold's statements was prejudicially incorrect, as it did not require a prior determination of whether he had requested counsel. Consequently, the conviction was reversed, and a new trial was ordered.

Murder in the second degreeFelony murderArsonDouble JeopardyRight to CounselMiranda warningsCustodial interrogationRetroactive application of lawNew trial
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Copper v. Cavalry Staffing, LLC

Derek Copper and Leslie Minto filed a collective action against Cavalry Staffing, Tracy Hester, and Enterprise Holdings, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime, minimum-wage violations, and inaccurate wage statements. Enterprise's motion to dismiss based on not being an employer was denied, with the court finding sufficient pleading for joint employer status. The defendants' joint motion to dismiss was denied for overtime and wage statement claims, but granted for minimum-wage claims. The court also granted the plaintiffs' motion to conditionally certify a collective action, finding adequate factual showing from named plaintiffs and additional affidavits. The parties were directed to agree on notice procedures for opt-in plaintiffs.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawUnpaid OvertimeMinimum WageWage StatementsJoint EmployerCollective ActionConditional CertificationMotion to DismissWage Theft Prevention Act
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 2,748 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