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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

The Matter of the Honorable Alan M. Simon a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and the Ramapo Town Court, Rockland County

Alan M. Simon, a Justice of the Spring Valley Village Court and Ramapo Town Court, sought review of a State Commission on Judicial Conduct determination which sustained six charges of misconduct and recommended his removal. Simon conceded the misconduct but challenged the removal sanction, proposing censure instead. The Court rejected Simon's contention, accepting the Commission's recommendation for removal. The misconduct included improper use of sanctions, ethnic smearing, name-calling, a physical altercation, baseless threats of contempt against officials, and inappropriate interference in a political election. The Court found these actions to constitute a pattern of egregious misconduct, irredeemably damaging public confidence, and noted Simon's unrepentant and evasive testimony.

Judicial MisconductJudicial EthicsRemoval from OfficeSanction ReviewRules Governing Judicial ConductAbuse of PowerContempt ThreatsPolitical InterferenceTemperament IssuesJudicial Discipline
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Novie

This case concerns the constitutionality of the Village of Montebello's Tree Preservation and Landscape Maintenance Law, under which a defendant was charged for removing trees without a permit. The defendant challenged the law on multiple constitutional grounds including ultra vires, uncompensated taking, due process violations, First Amendment infringement, and equal protection. The Justice Court initially granted the defendant's motion to dismiss the charges. On appeal, the court reversed this decision, upholding the constitutionality of the Tree Law. The court found the law served legitimate governmental purposes, its fees were reasonable, and the defendant's taking and due process claims were not ripe due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The First Amendment and equal protection challenges were also rejected.

Tree Preservation LawConstitutional LawFifth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentDue ProcessTakings ClauseEqual ProtectionFirst AmendmentLocal OrdinancesZoning Law
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bozer v. Higgins

The case involves Alan J. Bozer, an attorney, who initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against Higgins and the Office of Court Administration (OCA). Bozer challenged the constitutionality of magnetometer searches and briefcase inspections implemented at Erie County Hall, asserting they violated Judiciary Law and both State and Federal Constitutions by impeding free public access to courts. The court meticulously reviewed the administrative authority of the OCA, the statutory provisions for public court sittings, and various constitutional arguments presented by the petitioner. Ultimately, the court concluded that the security protocols, including magnetometer searches, were reasonable and did not infringe upon constitutional rights, citing numerous federal and state precedents that supported such measures for maintaining safety in court facilities. Consequently, the court denied Bozer's petition, deeming the lawsuit frivolous under 22 NYCRR 130-1.1, and ordered sanctions against both the petitioner and his law firm, in addition to awarding reasonable costs and attorney's fees to the respondents.

Court SecurityMagnetometer SearchesBriefcase InspectionCPLR Article 78Constitutional LawJudiciary LawFourth AmendmentPublic Access to CourtsFrivolous LawsuitSanctions
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n

The case addresses the arbitrability of a dispute between the Unified Court System (petitioner) and a respondent union. The petitioner had designated three newly hired Supervising Court Attorneys as "managerial/confidential," asserting that this classification falls under the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as per the Taylor Law and not within the scope of arbitration. Conversely, the respondent union argued that the matter should be arbitrated under the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) recognition clause and general arbitration provisions. The court applied a two-step analysis to assess arbitrability, concluding that there were no statutory or public policy prohibitions preventing arbitration of the "managerial or confidential" designation. It also found a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the CBA's provisions regarding new positions. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's motion to stay arbitration and granted the respondent's cross-motion, directing the parties to proceed with arbitration.

Public Employment ArbitrationManagerial/Confidential Employee DesignationCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Arbitrability DisputeUnion RepresentationGrievance ProcedureNew York Court System
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crosby v. WORKERS'COMP.

The case addresses the constitutionality of Section 24 of the Workers’ Compensation Law, which mandates Workers’ Compensation Board approval for attorneys’ fees. The plaintiff argued that this regulation infringed upon her constitutional rights to due process and equal protection by restricting her choice of legal counsel and ability to negotiate fee arrangements. The court dismissed claims under the State Constitution, citing Article I, Section 18. It also rejected the argument that the fee restrictions violated the federal right to privacy, classifying the choice of legal representation as an economic decision rather than a fundamental personal one. Furthermore, the court found a rational basis for the equal protection challenge, asserting that the law reasonably protects claimants from disadvantageous fee agreements, a protection not required by employers or insurance carriers. Consequently, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision upholding the constitutionality of Workers' Compensation Law Section 24.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorneys' FeesConstitutional ChallengeDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRight to CounselPrivacy RightsEconomic RegulationState Constitutional LawFederal Constitutional Law
References
22
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 08125 [133 AD3d 470]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 12, 2015

Acosta v. Gouverneur Court Ltd. Partnership

Plaintiff, Jesus Acosta, a maintenance worker, alleged he fell in a boiler room of a building owned by Gouverneur Court Limited Partnership when his pants caught on a brace or bracket. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the common-law negligence claim. The court found that the condition was not defective, but rather open and obvious and not inherently dangerous. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact and that the condition was plainly observable and did not constitute a trap or snare.

NegligenceSummary JudgmentPremises LiabilityOpen and ObviousInherently DangerousAppellate ReviewMaintenance WorkerBoiler RoomFall AccidentCommon-Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

CLARA C. v. William L.

The concurring opinion, penned by Judge Levine, addresses the unconstitutionality of Family Court Act § 516 as applied to Thomas L. C., arguing it denies the child equal protection under the law. While judicial restraint typically advises against reaching constitutional issues, the opinion asserts this rule is not absolute, especially when public interest and recurring issues necessitate prompt resolution. It challenges the State's interests previously upheld in Bacon v Bacon, citing subsequent legal developments and advancements in genetic testing, which have significantly reduced the "complex and difficult problems of proof" in paternity cases. The opinion concludes that the discriminatory treatment of nonmarital children under § 516, which bars them from seeking paternity adjudication and support based on a father's current means, lacks a substantial relationship to a legitimate State interest. Therefore, it advocates for reversing the order and remitting the case to Family Court, Kings County, with a declaration that Family Court Act § 516 is unconstitutional as applied.

Equal Protection ChallengeFamily Court Act Section 516Paternity ProceedingsNonmarital Children's RightsChild Support AgreementsConstitutional ScrutinyGenetic Testing EvidenceJudicial Precedent OverhaulState Interest DoctrineParental Support Modification
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Corcoran

Donald D. Goldberg, an orthopedic surgeon, challenged the constitutionality of New York Insurance Law § 5108, which limits the fees health service providers can charge under the 'no-fault' motor vehicle insurance act. Goldberg argued the law violated due process, was vague, denied equal protection, and impaired contract rights. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the complaint, and this court reviewed the decision. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal of claims brought on behalf of the fictitious 'John Doe' but found Goldberg's individual claims justiciable. The court ultimately declared Insurance Law § 5108 constitutional, ruling that the fee limitations are a valid exercise of the state's police power aimed at controlling no-fault insurance premiums and are reasonably related to a legitimate state objective. The court concluded that the statute does not infringe upon due process, contract rights, equal protection, or privacy, and modified the judgment to reflect this declaration.

Insurance Law § 5108no-fault insurancemedical fee scheduleconstitutional challengedue processequal protectionright to contractvagueness doctrineprivacy rightsWorkers' Compensation Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Myers v. Hinton

The court reversed a prior judgment, reinstating the complaint and directing judgment for the plaintiff union against the defendant. The defendant, a member of the Communications Workers of America, was fined for working during a strike in violation of the union's constitution. The court found no denial of due process in the fine's imposition, stating that the union's constitution forms a contract with its members, making the defendant's claim of ignorance invalid as the constitution was available. Furthermore, the court deemed the fine amount, calculated based on earnings during the strike, reasonable as it equalized the defendant's position with other striking members.

Union disputeStrike violationMember disciplineUnion constitutionContractual obligationsDue processReasonable fineLabor lawMembership agreementFines and penalties
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cherry v. Koch

Plaintiffs Margo St. James and Fred Cherry sought a declaratory judgment challenging the constitutionality of New York Penal Law §§ 230.00 and 230.03, which prohibit prostitution and patronizing prostitutes, respectively. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed the complaint for failure to state a cause of action, a decision affirmed on appeal. The appellate court held that the plaintiffs failed to present a justiciable issue because they could not demonstrate actual or threatened injury from the enforcement of these statutes, nor a reasonable fear of future prosecution. Consequently, the plaintiffs lacked standing to sue. The court modified the lower court's order by deleting the provision that addressed the merits of the constitutional challenge, affirming the dismissal of the complaint.

JusticiabilityStanding to SueDeclaratory JudgmentConstitutional ChallengePenal Law Sections 230.00Penal Law Sections 230.03ProstitutionPatronizing ProstitutesPrivacy RightsDue Process
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 20,596 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