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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gagen v. Kipany Productions, Ltd.

This case concerns an appeal regarding a Labor Law article 6 claim, specifically whether the plaintiff, Gagen, was an employee or an independent contractor of Kipany Productions, Inc. The defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted based on evidence from the plaintiff's tax returns. These returns showed the plaintiff claiming deductions consistent with independent contractor status, contradicting a previous affidavit. Due to these significant conflicts, the self-serving affidavit was disregarded. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment was affirmed by the appellate court.

Employment lawIndependent contractorOvertime compensationSummary judgmentTax returnsAffidavitEvidentiary conflictAppellate reviewLabor Law Article 6Worker classification
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2005

Collins v. Glenwood Management Corp.

Plaintiff Lance Collins, injured at a Manhattan construction site, initiated an action in Bronx County based on claimed residency. Defendants moved to change venue to Orange County, presenting evidence like DMV records and an affidavit from a Bronx building owner suggesting Collins resided in Orange County. Plaintiffs opposed, offering tax returns and affidavits asserting Bronx residency, and arguing the defendants' motion was untimely. The IAS court initially denied the venue change, deeming it untimely. However, the appellate court reversed, finding the defendants' motion timely given the conflicting evidence on Collins' residency, and remanded the case for a hearing to resolve these factual disputes.

VenueChange of VenueResidency DisputeAppellate DivisionBronx CountyOrange CountyCivil ProcedureCPLRCredibilityFactual Issues
References
3
Case No. 2004 NY Slip Op 24081
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2004

Matter of Manhattan Plaza Assocs., L.P. v. Department of Hous. Preserv. & Dev. of the City of New York

The case involves Manhattan Plaza Associates, L.P. (petitioner) seeking to annul HPD's decision granting Michael Madden succession rights to his deceased parents' Section 8 apartment. HPD's Administrative Law Judge Helen Levy had denied Manhattan Plaza's eviction request, finding Michael Madden was entitled to succession despite not being listed on annual income affidavits, as he proved co-occupancy. Manhattan Plaza argued that federal law, as interpreted in Matter of Evans v Franco, made the absence from affidavits dispositive. The court disagreed, distinguishing Evans by noting it permitted agency discretion to hold a hearing and that state law generally controls landlord-tenant issues unless explicitly conflicting with federal law. The court found HPD's rule allowing rebuttal of the presumption was consistent with Section 8 purposes, upholding HPD's decision.

HousingSection 8Succession RightsMitchell-Lama LawAdministrative LawEvictionFamily MemberPrimary ResidenceNew York Supreme CourtCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McGinn v. Morrin

This order addresses the defendants' motion to vacate and set aside the service of various legal documents, including an order to show cause, affidavit, summons, and verified complaint. The court unanimously affirmed the denial of the defendants' motion. The decision included an award of twenty dollars in costs and disbursements. Defendants were also granted leave to answer within twenty days after the service of the order, contingent upon the payment of the aforementioned costs.

Motion to VacateService of ProcessOrder to Show CauseVerified ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsAffirmation of OrderLeave to Answer
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Panio v. Sunderland

This case concerns appeals related to the validity of absentee and affidavit ballots from the November 2, 2004 general election for the 35th State Senatorial District, contested between Republican candidate Nicholas Spano and Democratic candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins. The court modified the Appellate Division's order, ruling that 163 affidavit ballots cast in the correct polling site but wrong election district, 45 absentee ballots by poll workers, and 20 affidavit ballots with missing election district information, all due to ministerial errors by the Board of Elections, must be counted. Conversely, 457 affidavit ballots cast at the wrong polling place and three affidavit ballots where votes were already recorded for those voters were properly excluded. The decision emphasizes balancing statutory duties with voter rights, ensuring that ministerial errors do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

election lawballot validityaffidavit ballotsabsentee ballotsministerial errorvoter disenfranchisementpolling siteelection districtNew York State Senateelection dispute
References
8
Case No. ADJ358912 (GRO 0032620) ADJ1583814 (GRO 0032621)
Regular
Jun 21, 2010

ROSS COVELLO vs. CITY OF SANTA MARIA, Pecmissibly Self-Insured, GREGORY BRAGG & ASSOCIATES, Adjusting Agency

The Appeals Board dismissed the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration because the PWCJ's order setting the matter for trial was not a final order. The Board denied the applicant's request for removal, finding no showing of significant prejudice or irreparable harm justifying this extraordinary remedy. Additionally, the petition for disqualification was denied due to the applicant's failure to provide the required affidavit or declaration under penalty of perjury. The applicant's contentions regarding discovery, notice defects, counsel conflicts, and bias were found insufficient to warrant reconsideration or removal.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationPresiding Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeDeclaration of ReadinessAgreed Medical ExaminerDiscovery ClosedMandatory Settlement ConferenceFinal Order
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2002

Kumar v. Stahlunt Associates

The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability concerning a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court identified triable issues of fact arising from differing accounts of the construction site accident and conflicting expert affidavits regarding the adequacy of safety devices provided. Furthermore, questions were raised about whether the plaintiff's conduct constituted the sole proximate cause of the accident. The defendants-respondents' argument that the plaintiff was a recalcitrant worker was rejected. The original denial of partial summary judgment was unanimously affirmed.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSection 240 (1)Summary JudgmentLiabilitySafety DevicesProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerExpert AffidavitsTriable Issues of Fact
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

James Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Sinensky

The plaintiff, a manufacturer of knit goods, sought to temporarily enjoin the defendant, a knit goods union, from picketing its plant. The plaintiff alleged the picketing aimed to coerce recognition of the union as the sole bargaining agent, despite an existing collective bargaining agreement with another certified union. The defendant denied this purpose, asserting that the picketing was peaceful, orderly, and solely for organizational purposes. The court noted that these disputed factual issues could not be resolved on conflicting affidavits and required a hearing or trial. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for an injunction was denied, and the action was set for an early trial at Special Term, Part III.

InjunctionPicketingLabor LawUnion DisputeCollective BargainingNational Labor Relations BoardMotion PracticeTrial SettingInterlocutory OrderDisputed Issues
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1999

Zylinski v. Garito Contracting

The defendants appealed an order denying their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The plaintiff, a temporary construction worker, was injured at the defendants' job site and received Workers' Compensation benefits. The defendants argued that the plaintiff was their "special employee" and thus barred from suing them under Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied their motion. The appellate court reversed, finding that the plaintiff's deposition testimony indicated he was exclusively directed and controlled by the defendants' employees, establishing him as a special employee. The plaintiff's conflicting affidavit was disregarded due to lack of explanation for the contradiction. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentSpecial EmployeeDeposition TestimonyConflicting AffidavitsAppellate ReversalLabor LawEmployer LiabilityTemporary Employment
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,291 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