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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Seligman

Plaintiff, an injured worker, sued her attorneys, Raymond J. Seligman and his law firm, for legal malpractice. The attorneys allegedly provided negligent advice by mistakenly informing her that she could not pursue a third-party claim for pain and suffering against the Gideon Putnam Hotel, believing she was employed by the hotel. By the time she consulted a different attorney, the statute of limitations for such a claim had expired. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing they had no duty to investigate her employment representation. The Supreme Court denied the motion, finding questions of fact regarding the defendants' duty to investigate and their negligence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the attorneys owed a duty to investigate and that there was a question of fact as to whether they exercised appropriate care in performing that duty, thus precluding summary judgment for the defendants.

Legal MalpracticeWorkers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentDuty to InvestigateNegligenceThird-Party ClaimAppellate ReviewAttorney ResponsibilityEmployment Status
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 23, 2018

Kindle v. Dejana

Plaintiffs, participants in the Atrium Management Services, Inc. Employee Stock Ownership Plan (ESOP), initiated a class action, alleging that defendants breached fiduciary duties and violated ERISA in connection with the valuation and sale of ESOP assets. After extensive litigation, including cross-motions for summary judgment and a bench trial, the parties agreed to a Special Master's neutral valuation, which led to a substantial recovery of over $1.4 million for the class. Subsequently, Plaintiff Michael Brewley moved for attorneys' fees and costs. The court partially granted and partially denied this motion, ultimately awarding over $955,000 in attorneys' fees, nearly $103,000 in costs, and a $10,000 service award to the named plaintiff.

ERISAEmployee Stock Ownership PlanFiduciary DutyClass ActionAttorneys FeesCostsClass Representative AwardLodestar MethodFee Shifting StatuteStipulated Agreement
References
79
Case No. 03-27303
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2004

In Re Ambotiene

Richard J. McCord, as Chapter 7 trustee for Aldona Ambotiene, sought attorneys' fees and costs from Grand Street Realty, LLC and its counsel due to their obstruction of the Trustee's efforts to inspect the Debtor's assets. The Landlord repeatedly refused access to the premises, forcing the Trustee to file a motion to compel. The Court found that the Landlord and its counsel did not act in good faith and caused the Trustee to incur unnecessary expenses in fulfilling his statutory and fiduciary duties. Consequently, the Court granted the Trustee an award of $6,987 in attorneys' fees and $166.79 in costs, totaling $7,253.79, to be paid jointly and severally by the Landlord and its counsel.

Attorneys' FeesCosts AwardedChapter 7 BankruptcyTrustee DutiesCreditor ObstructionSanctionsBankruptcy Code Section 105Good Faith RequirementAsset InspectionFiduciary Duty
References
33
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 [161 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Machado

This case involves reciprocal discipline against attorney Esmeralda Machado. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought to discipline Machado based on a New Jersey Supreme Court order permanently barring her from appearing pro hac vice due to unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Machado had repeatedly failed to pay required fees, continued to practice in New Jersey despite her pro hac vice admission terminating, misused another attorney's letterhead, and made false statements in a divorce proceeding. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending Machado from the practice of law in New York for two years, effective June 11, 2018. The court found her misconduct in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York.

Attorney MisconductUnauthorized Practice of LawReciprocal DisciplineProfessional EthicsSuspensionNew Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingsFalse StatementsFraudDishonestyAppellate Division First Department
References
10
Case No. ADJ8917716
Regular
May 03, 2016

INGA CZECH vs. BANK OF AMERICA, ACE AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY

Defendant Bank of America sought reconsideration of an award for medical treatment, arguing the Request for Authorization (RFA) was improperly served on their attorney, not the adjuster, thus not triggering utilization review timelines. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the applicant's physician's requested treatment was reasonable. The Board held that when an attorney receives an RFA and the defense has objected to its receipt, the attorney has a duty to transmit it to the claims administrator to fulfill the duty of good faith investigation. Therefore, the defendant's failure to process the treatment request after receiving it through their attorney resulted in liability for the awarded medical care.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardUtilization ReviewLabor Code Section 4610Request for Authorization (RFA)Declaration of Readiness to Proceed (DOR)Expedited HearingAdministrative Law Judge (WCJ)Agency LawAttorney NegligenceGood Faith Investigation
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,886 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