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. 2012 NY Slip Op 31770OJ
Regular Panel Decision

Floyd v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued judgments annulling mayoral personnel orders No. 2012/1 and 2012/2, dated April 11, 2012. These orders reclassified ungraded civil service titles, subject to prevailing wage bargaining under Labor Law § 220, to graded workers under the New York City Collective Bargaining Law. The annulment was affirmed because the City failed to comply with Civil Service Law § 20, which mandates notice, a public hearing, and State Civil Service Commission approval for such reclassifications. The concurring justices were Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman, and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

annulmentmayoral orderscivil serviceprevailing wagecollective bargaininglabor lawcivil service lawreclassificationpublic hearingstate civil service commission
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fontana v. Callahan

Plaintiff Beatrice Fontana sought wife's insurance benefits as a divorced spouse from the Commissioner of Social Security, but her application was ultimately denied by the Appeals Council, leading to this action for review. The central legal question was whether her annulled marriage, deemed invalid due to her ex-husband's prior undissolved marriage, qualified her as a "divorced spouse" under the Social Security Act's "deemed valid marriage" provisions. The court examined various U.S.C. and C.F.R. sections, along with New York state law concerning marriage annulments, to determine the equivalence of annulment and divorce for benefit purposes. It also addressed whether a "living in the same household" requirement applied to divorced spouses from deemed valid marriages. Ultimately, the court concluded that an annulment functions as a divorce under the Social Security Act and that the cohabitation requirement does not apply to divorced spouses. The case was therefore remanded for further proceedings consistent with this order.

Social Security ActWife's Insurance BenefitsDivorced Spouse BenefitsAnnulmentDeemed Valid MarriageLegal ImpedimentNew York State LawMexican DivorceAdministrative Law ReviewSocial Security Administration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ditaranto v. State Division of Human Rights

The petitioner sought to annul a determination by the State Division of Human Rights, which dismissed her complaint of employment termination based on sex and pregnancy discrimination due to a finding of no probable cause. The court dismissed the petition and confirmed the Division's order, concluding there was no support for the claim of discrimination. The decision highlighted the petitioner's record of repeated absences and unsatisfactory attitude, which predated her pregnancy, and the employer's existing policy regarding excessive absences. Despite the petitioner's claim of no warning, the court found that an employee manual, which she acknowledged receiving, outlined disciplinary actions for such conduct. A dissenting opinion argued for further investigation, emphasizing the possibility of subtle discrimination given the petitioner was the employer's first pregnant employee and was terminated without a direct warning.

Employment TerminationPregnancy DiscriminationAdministrative ReviewNo Probable Cause FindingAbsenteeism Policy ViolationEmployee Manual AcknowledgmentDisparate Treatment AllegationHuman Rights LawJudicial ReviewSufficiency of Investigation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dubinsky v. Joseph Love, Inc.

A motion seeking an order to affirm a prior order and judgment and to vacate a previous determination and order of the court was considered and denied by the judicial panel. The panel included Justices Martin, Townley, Callahan, and Peck.

Motion PracticeOrder AffirmanceJudgment AffirmancePrior DeterminationOrder VacaturJudicial Panel DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421) ADJ522765 (VNO 0452422)
Regular
May 26, 2011

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted lien claimant's petition for removal to rescind an Administrative Law Judge's order compelling Dr. Baden's appearance at trial. The Board found no good cause was established for Dr. Baden's direct examination and that the order was not a final, appealable decision. Removal was granted to prevent prejudice to the lien claimant, and the order for Dr. Baden's appearance was rescinded. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's prior petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderDr. Scott BadenGood CauseMedical WitnessDirect ExaminationWritten ReportsBoard Rule 10606
References
11
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leondopoulos v. Caradjas

The order was unanimously affirmed. The defendant was granted leave to answer the amended complaint within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry. This is contingent upon the payment of $20 in costs and disbursements. No opinion was provided for this decision. The judges present for this order were Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis, and Shientag, JJ.

OrderAffirmedAmended ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsLeave to AnswerPanel DecisionJudicial Panel
References
0
Case No. 71 Civ. 2877
Regular Panel Decision

Commission v. Local 638 ... Local 28 of Sheet Metal Workers International Ass'n

The City of New York moved to modify a prior contempt order to establish a hiring hall operator selection committee and secure compensation for its representatives. Defendant Local 28 opposed the compensation, suggesting alternative funding or a delay pending a financial audit. The court granted the modification, authorizing the committee's formation and ordering Local 28 to pay the plaintiff's representatives at the journeyperson hourly rate, plus expenses. The judge dismissed Local 28's financial hardship claims due to insufficient evidence and the union's history of non-compliance with anti-discrimination orders. This decision ensures the effective implementation of equal employment opportunities for nonwhite members through the hiring hall.

DiscriminationContemptHiring HallCompensationUnionAffirmative ActionEmployment OpportunitiesJudicial ReviewCivil RightsSanctions
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 24,323 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