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. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2014

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C. v. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. CASSAR

This appeal arises from a dispute between two law firms concerning attorney's fees. The plaintiff law firm initially represented a client in a personal injury action. The client subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained the defendant law firms. The plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants in Erie County, seeking attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis and alleging frivolous and fraudulent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer venue. The court granted the dismissal of the second and third causes of action related to frivolous and fraudulent conduct but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the first cause of action and the denial of the motion to transfer venue.

Attorney's FeesCharging LienQuantum MeruitLegal MalpracticeFrivolous ConductFraudMotion to DismissVenue TransferCPLR 3211CPLR 510
References
13
Case No. ADJ2572472 (STK 0211277)
Regular
Dec 16, 2013

Eugene Bogarin vs. CITY OF STOCKTON

The defendant sought reconsideration of a decision denying sanctions against the applicant's attorney for alleged bad faith. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the petition, upholding the administrative law judge's finding that no sanctionable conduct occurred. While not finding the conduct warranting sanctions in this instance, the WCAB strongly admonished both the applicant's attorney and his clinic for filing a seemingly frivolous Petition to Reopen without client communication, which wasted resources. The WCAB cautioned that future similar conduct could be deemed sanctionable.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderAdministrative Law JudgeSanctionsLabor Code Section 5813Appeals Board Rule 10561Attorney's FeesCostsPetition to Reopen
References
0
Case No. ADJ4230639
Regular
Nov 05, 2010

GARY FOSTER (Deceased), MANUEL VILLARREAL vs. RPI COATING, INC., SCIF INSURED FRESNO

This case involves the imposition of $\$ 250.00$ in sanctions against defendant's counsel, Sylvia Bedrossian, and her client, SCIF. The sanctions were issued for engaging in bad faith and/or frivolous conduct by failing to provide proper evidentiary citations and attaching documents not in evidence to a petition for reconsideration. The Appeals Board found this conduct wasted its limited resources. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLabor Code section 5813Board Rule 10561Bad Faith ConductFrivolous ConductImproper CitationsUnacknowledged ExhibitsPetition for Reconsideration
References
0
Case No. ADJ6766189
Regular
Jul 03, 2012

MIRNA CERRATO AGUILAR vs. BEVERLY PAVILION ASSOCIATES, FIRSTCOMP OMAHA

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by Anna Montes, a hearing representative, regarding a $1,500 sanction imposed by the WCJ. Montes was sanctioned for her "insolent, obstructive, disrespectful and frivolous" conduct during a workers' compensation trial involving her client, Dr. Anguizola. The Appeals Board denied Montes' petition, adopting the WCJ's report which detailed how her behavior caused unnecessary delay and wasted Board resources. The Board reiterated that representatives must conduct themselves professionally and ethically, adhering to rules against bad faith tactics that cause delay.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsPetition for ReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryRoom AttendantLien ClaimantMedical TreatmentPenaltyInterestInsolent Conduct
References
0
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01613 [183 AD3d 56]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 11, 2020

Matter of Cardillo

The Grievance Committee for the Second, Eleventh, and Thirteenth Judicial Districts moved to confirm a Special Referee's report against Harry A. Cardillo, a suspended attorney. Cardillo was charged with two counts of misappropriating client funds from his escrow account in two separate personal injury matters in violation of rule 1.15(a) of the Rules of Professional Conduct. Specifically, he allowed the balance in his escrow account to fall below the amounts due to his clients and to satisfy a workers' compensation lien. The Special Referee sustained both charges, and the Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the report, noting Cardillo's failure to honor his fiduciary obligations and his prior disciplinary record. Consequently, Cardillo was suspended from the practice of law for three years, effective immediately, without credit for time already served under an interim suspension.

Attorney DisciplineProfessional MisconductMisappropriation of FundsEscrow Account ViolationsSuspension of AttorneyGrievance CommitteeRules of Professional Conduct 1.15(a)Fiduciary DutyAppellate Division Second Department
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Tartakoff v. New York State Education Department

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Board of Regents to suspend a licensed clinical social worker's license for two years due to professional misconduct. The petitioner was accused of negligence, incompetence, and unprofessional conduct, specifically for socializing with clients and failing to maintain accurate records between October 2004 and June 2008. The Hearing Panel and Regents Review Committee found the petitioner guilty, leading to a modified penalty of a five-year suspension, with part stayed, and five years of probation. The petitioner challenged the determination, arguing improper admission of client records due to social worker privilege and unfair hearing due to counsel disqualification. The court upheld the determination, finding no violation of privilege and affirming the disqualification of counsel due to a conflict of interest. The court concluded that substantial evidence supported the Board's findings and the penalty was not disproportionate.

Professional MisconductSocial Worker LicenseLicense SuspensionCPLR Article 78Board of RegentsNew York State Education DepartmentClient ConfidentialityConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationSubstantial Evidence Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Romano

Respondent, Benedict F. Romano, an attorney admitted to practice in New York, maintained an office within the First Judicial Department. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) moved for his immediate suspension based on substantial admissions of professional misconduct. Ms. A., a client, reported that respondent conducted an intimate physical examination during an initial consultation for a workers' compensation case. Respondent admitted to the examination but denied impropriety, claiming it was essential for case assessment. A Hearing Panel sustained the charge and recommended a two-year suspension. Subsequently, another client, Ms. D., accused respondent of similar misconduct, taking photographs while improperly touching her. The DDC's motion for immediate suspension was granted by the Court, finding that respondent's actions, and his inability to comprehend their impropriety, posed an immediate threat to the public interest, constituting professional misconduct under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (ii) and (iii).

Attorney DisciplinaryProfessional MisconductSexual MisconductSuspension of AttorneyDR 1-102 (A) (8)22 NYCRR 603.4Fitness to Practice LawUncontested EvidenceSubstantial Admission Under OathDisciplinary Committee
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Principe v. Assay Partners

Fourth-party defendant Meadow Mechanical Corporation moved for sanctions against plaintiff’s counsel, Lawrence Clarke, Esq., alleging abusive conduct during depositions and an improper suggestion regarding notarizations. The court, presided over by Diane A. Lebedeff, J., found Mr. Clarke’s remarks during depositions (e.g., "little lady," "little mouse," "young girl") to be frivolous, abusive, and discriminatory, meriting sanctions under 22 NYCRR part 130. However, the allegations regarding improper notarization were denied due to a factual dispute requiring a hearing, which the court deemed inappropriate given the limited financial deterrent of part 130; instead, this matter was referred to the Departmental Disciplinary Committee. The court ordered Mr. Clarke to pay $500 to the Clients’ Security Fund and $500 to movant’s attorney as reasonable attorney's fees. This decision underscores the judiciary's commitment to civility and non-discriminatory conduct in the legal profession.

Attorney MisconductSanctionsGender BiasDiscovery AbuseProfessional ResponsibilityDepositionsNotarization AllegationDisciplinary ActionObjective StandardFrivolous Conduct
References
45
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,523 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