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
Sep 03, 1997

Byer v. Town of Poestenkill

This case is an appeal concerning the validity of Local Law No. 2 of the Town of Poestenkill, which allowed rezoning for gravel mining. The initial Supreme Court judgment annulled the law due to a purported conflict of interest by a Town Board member and an inadequate environmental review under SEQRA. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no conflict of interest as the financial benefit was speculative and the Ethics Board's finding of no conflict was rational. Furthermore, the court found the Town Board's SEQRA review sufficient, as it had thoroughly assessed environmental impacts. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court to address an unreviewed issue regarding protest petitions.

Environmental LawZoningLocal LawsConflict of InterestSEQRAJudicial ReviewTown BoardGravel MiningPublic OfficialsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Arya National Shipping Line, Ltd.

Luis Perez, a longshoreman injured in 1973, commenced an action against a shipowner in 1975, fifteen months after receiving compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The shipowner moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Perez's right to sue was assigned to his employer because he failed to initiate the action within the six-month statutory period outlined in LHWCA section 33(b). Perez invoked the "conflict of interest" exception established in Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud. The court examined who bears the burden of proof for this exception, ultimately siding with the defendant's position that the employee must demonstrate such a conflict. The defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, but Perez was given forty-five days to present competent evidence of a conflict of interest.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActConflict of InterestAssignment of ClaimsMotion to DismissBurden of ProofStatutory InterpretationThird-Party LiabilityEmployer IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardMaritime Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Isaacson

This is a criminal prosecution where defendant Julius Isaacson, a union official, was charged with embezzling and conspiring to embezzle money from a labor union and employee benefit funds through an alleged kickback scheme. The Government moved to disqualify Isaacson’s counsel due to a potential conflict of interest, as the attorney and his firm previously represented some of the alleged victim entities. Despite Isaacson’s waiver of his right to conflict-free counsel, the Government argued that the conflict was intolerable. The court denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that the factual allegations focused on external conduct, there was insufficient information at the early pretrial stage, and counsel had largely withdrawn from representing the victim entities. The court conditioned continued representation on counsel fully withdrawing from the remaining entity and attesting to no outstanding fees.

Criminal ProsecutionConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationEmbezzlementUnion FundsEmployee Benefit PlansERISAKickback SchemeObstruction of JusticeSixth Amendment
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McLaughlin

The People moved to disqualify the Legal Aid Society from representing the defendant, Mr. McLaughlin, on the grounds that the Society had previously represented a key prosecution witness, Mr. Luis Elicier. The defense argued against the motion, citing timeliness and claiming no actual conflict of interest. The court, presided over by Justice Carol Berkman, found an actual conflict due to the Society's prior representation of Elicier and their stated intent to implicate him in the current crimes. Despite the defendant's desire to retain his chosen counsel and the Society's proposed 'Chinese Wall' defense, the court ruled that the conflict of interest was undeniable and ordered the disqualification of the Legal Aid Society. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and protecting the former client's confidences, overriding the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in this instance.

Attorney disqualificationConflict of interest (legal)Sixth Amendment right to counselAttorney-client privilegeEthical violationsCriminal defenseProsecution witnessFormer client representationJudicial ethicsNew York courts
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ferrara v. Jordache Enterprises Inc.

This case involves a conflict of interest arising from the dual representation of a school bus driver, Christine Ferrara, and a matron, Angela Garguilo, by the same law firm after a collision between their bus and a car. Defendants HVT, Inc., Jordache Enterprises, Inc., and Deborah and Ralph Nakash moved and cross-moved for the disqualification of the firm, citing disciplinary rules against representing a driver and passenger jointly due to potential counterclaims and conflicts. The court found that such dual representation constitutes a clear conflict, especially given that counterclaims against the driver were indeed asserted. The plaintiffs' counsel's arguments regarding co-employee status and sole liability of the defendant were deemed unavailing without proper motions. The court granted the disqualification, relieving counsel from representing both plaintiffs and imposing a 60-day stay for them to secure new counsel, while denying other pending motions with leave to renew.

Conflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationDual RepresentationDisciplinary RulesDriver-Passenger ConflictLegal EthicsWorkers' Compensation Law implicationsFiduciary ObligationsClient ConfidentialitySummary Judgment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Filippi v. Elmont Union Free School District Board of Education

Plaintiff Karen Filippi filed an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against her employer, the Elmont Union Free School District Board of Education, Superintendent Al Harper, and administrator Robert Geras. Defendants moved to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, the Law Offices of Steven A. Morelli and Eric Tilton, due to a conflict of interest. An associate at the Morelli Firm, Lorraine Ferrigno, also serves as the Vice President of the defendant Board of Education. The Court found a clear and unwaivable conflict of interest under New York State Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7 and Rule 1.11, as Ferrigno had a fiduciary duty to the Board and personally received letters regarding Filippi's claims. Despite screening measures, the Court deemed them insufficient in the small, six-lawyer firm and concluded the conflict was non-waivable. The motion to disqualify both the Morelli Firm and Eric Tilton, due to his close affiliation, was granted.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationFiduciary DutyProfessional EthicsNew York State Rules of Professional ConductJudicial DiscretionSmall Law FirmScreening Procedures
References
34
Case No. ADJ9767744
Regular
Jun 10, 2016

ROSA AGUIRRE vs. DAVID MARLEY, ORLY MARLEY, MID CENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns an applicant's challenge to the replacement of a chiropractic QME panel with an orthopedic one. The applicant argued that the regulation allowing this replacement conflicted with the Labor Code. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because the challenged order was not a final one. Furthermore, the WCAB denied the petition for removal on the merits, finding no conflict between the regulation and the Labor Code.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Medical DirectorQME Regulation 31.1(b)QME Regulation 31.5(a)(10)Labor Code section 4062.2Final OrderInterim Order
References
10
Case No. ADJ4398425 (LAO 0875977) ADJ1647933 (LAO 0867627)
Regular
Jul 21, 2010

PHYLLIS MOSS vs. PriceWaterhouseCoopers, LLP, Chubb Services Corporation

This case involves a dispute over a mandatory settlement conference (MSC) where both parties claim the other was absent or improperly handled the proceedings. The Appeals Board granted removal due to conflicting records and confusing circumstances surrounding the MSC and a subsequent trial setting. The Board found the WCJ erred by setting the matter for trial after issuing an order taking it off calendar, despite conflicting accounts of attorney appearances. Consequently, the scheduled trial was converted to a status conference for further proceedings.

Petition for removalMandatory settlement conferenceOrder off calendarMinutes of HearingPre-Trial Conference StatementAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)Status conferenceRemandedWCJWCAB
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,068 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