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

King v. Allied Vision, Ltd.

This case involves a plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees following a remand from the Second Circuit Court of Appeals. Plaintiff Stephen King sought fees due to defendant New Line Cinema's contempt of court for numerous violations of a Final Consent Decree concerning the misattribution of 'The Lawnmower Man' film. The District Court had previously found the defendant in contempt and awarded fees in 1994 and 1995. The Second Circuit affirmed some parts of the 1994 order but vacated others, along with the entire 1995 order, remanding the attorney's fees issue for reconsideration, specifically questioning the willfulness of the noncompliance. Upon review, this court concluded that while the defendant's conduct was negligent and contumacious, it did not meet the clear and convincing evidence standard for willfulness required for an award of attorney's fees for civil contempt under Second Circuit law. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for attorney's fees was denied.

Civil ContemptAttorney's FeesWillfulness StandardSecond Circuit RemandConsent Decree ViolationsLanham ActFilm MisattributionThe Lawnmower ManInjunctive ReliefCompensatory Damages
References
27
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

O'Neil v. Roman Catholic Diocese

A student worker at St. Ephrem’s Church (the plaintiff) experienced sexual harassment from a visiting priest. After a particularly egregious incident, she informed other parish priests who promptly referred her to law enforcement. The plaintiff subsequently sued the Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn and St. Ephrem’s Church for sexual harassment, negligence, negligent hiring, and negligent supervision, arguing they should have known of the priest's propensity. The Supreme Court, Kings County, granted summary judgment to the Diocese defendants, dismissing the plaintiff's claims, finding they lacked actual or constructive knowledge. The appellate court affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants met their burden in demonstrating no prior knowledge of the visiting priest's conduct and acted diligently once informed.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentNegligenceNegligent HiringNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityConstructive KnowledgeDiscriminationNew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Health Acquisition Corp. v. Program Risk Management Inc.

The plaintiffs, home health care companies (Health Acquisition Corp., Bestcare, Inc., and Aides at Home, Inc.), sued various defendants, including accounting firm DeChants, Fuglein & Johnson, LLP (DFJ) and actuarial firm SGRisk, LLC, for professional negligence and negligent misrepresentation. The suit arose after the self-insurance trust they were members of became insolvent, leading to significant assessments from the Workers' Compensation Board. Plaintiffs alleged defendants concealed the trust's true financial state and their liability risks. The Supreme Court initially dismissed claims against DFJ and SGRisk. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding the complaint adequately alleged "near-privity" and negligence against both firms, even clarifying that actuaries could be held liable for common-law negligence despite not being licensed professionals for malpractice claims. A partial appeal concerning leave to amend the complaint was dismissed.

professional negligencenegligent misrepresentationCPLR 3211 (a)motion to dismissgroup self-insurance trustWorkers' Compensation Law § 50joint and several liabilityactuariesaccountantsnear-privity
References
15
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. 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. 2024 NY Slip Op 00274 [223 AD3d 105]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2024

Matter of Lilly

Respondent, an attorney, faced a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee for falsely certifying compliance with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements in two attorney registration renewals. The misconduct occurred on September 6, 2019, and October 22, 2021. Despite initially making false certifications, he subsequently completed the required CLEs retroactively. Both parties jointly moved for discipline by consent, stipulating to aggravating factors such as repeated false certifications while under investigation and self-interest, alongside mitigating factors like remorse, full cooperation, absence of client misconduct, a long untarnished career, and pro bono work. The court granted the joint motion, imposing a two-month suspension from the practice of law, effective February 22, 2024, citing relevant precedents for similar sanctions.

Attorney MisconductCLE RequirementsFalse CertificationAttorney RegistrationProfessional Conduct RulesDisciplinary ProceedingTwo-Month SuspensionMitigationAggravating FactorsAppellate Division
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,715 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