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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 09-06-569 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2007

Facility Insurance Corp., a Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool v. Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd.

This Memorandum Opinion from the Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont addresses an appeal involving Facility Insurance Corp., as Successor in Interest to the Texas Workers' Compensation Assigned Risk Pool (Appellant), and Anthony Zenon and Neurobehavioral Resources, Ltd. (Appellees). The parties jointly requested the Court to vacate the judgment rendered by the trial court and remand the cause for the entry of a new judgment, in accordance with their reached agreement. The Court, finding the motion compliant with Tex. R. App. P. 42.1(a)(2), granted the request. As a result, the judgment of the trial court was vacated without delving into the merits of the case, and the matter was sent back to the 60th District Court of Jefferson County, Texas, for further proceedings in line with the parties' settlement agreement. All costs incurred were assessed against the respective parties.

TexasCourt of AppealsVacatedRemandedSettlement AgreementWorkers' CompensationAppellate ProcedureMemorandum OpinionTrial Court JudgmentJoint Motion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mejia v. Trustees of Net Realty Holding Trust

The third-party defendant, Plaster Master, appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Queens County, which had denied its motion for judgment as a matter of law on a contractual indemnification claim. The lower court had found Plaster Master contractually obligated to indemnify Kimco Realty Services, Inc., the general contractor, in a case stemming from a personal injury lawsuit by a Plaster Master employee. The appellate court found the indemnification provision in the contract, drafted by Kimco, to be ambiguous. Due to the ambiguity and lack of clarifying parol evidence, the court resolved the ambiguity against Kimco. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's order, granted Plaster Master's motion, and dismissed Kimco's third-party claim for contractual indemnification.

Contractual IndemnificationAmbiguity in ContractParol EvidenceConstruction LawAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LawGeneral ContractorSubcontractor LiabilityMeeting of the MindsThird-Party Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of Cohoes v. Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562

The City of Cohoes, as petitioner, sought to prevent arbitration initiated by the Uniform Firefighters of Cohoes, Local 2562, concerning "light duty" assignments for "nonworking" firefighters under General Municipal Law § 207-a (3). The union argued for due process hearings and the arbitrability of these assignments based on their collective bargaining agreement. Justice Harold J. Hughes, however, ruled that issues related to General Municipal Law § 207-a (3) are not subject to arbitration. The court emphasized a strong public policy and established decisional law which supports municipal employers' flexibility in assigning light duty and deems the statute self-contained, separate from contractual arbitration. Consequently, the petitioner's application to stay arbitration was granted, with the court noting that any abuse of employer discretion remains subject to judicial review.

Arbitration StayGeneral Municipal Law 207-aLight DutyFirefighter BenefitsPublic Policy ExceptionCollective BargainingEmployer AuthorityDisabled EmployeesTaylor LawMunicipal Employers
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rodrigues v. N & S Building Contractors, Inc.

Plaintiff Jose Rodrigues, an employee of Caldas Concrete Company, Inc., was injured at a construction site. Plaintiffs commenced an action against the property owner and N & S Building Contractors, Inc., which in turn initiated a third-party action against Caldas for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court dismissed N & S's contractual indemnification claim against Caldas. N & S appealed this dismissal, arguing the agreement provided for indemnification. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the indemnification clause did not unambiguously cover injuries sustained by Caldas employees.

Contractual IndemnificationSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Law § 241(6)Third-Party ActionConstruction Site InjuryEmployer LiabilitySubcontractor IndemnityGrave InjuryStrict Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Podhaskie v. Seventh Chelsea Associates

A judgment entered February 14, 2003, which granted summary judgment to third-party defendant Regional Scaffolding & Hoisting Company, Inc. (Regional) dismissing a third-party complaint seeking contractual indemnity, was reversed. The appellate court reinstated the third-party complaint and all cross claims. The case involves an injured carpenter, employed by Regional, who sued the owner (Seventh Chelsea Associates) and construction manager (HRH Construction Corporation) for personal injuries under the Labor Law. These appellants then brought a third-party action against Regional for contractual indemnification. The lower court dismissed this claim, finding no existing contract for indemnity at the time of the accident. However, the appellate court found an issue of fact regarding whether various documents, including a bid proposal, certificate of insurance, and a later formal contract, demonstrated Regional's intent for the indemnification to apply retroactively, thus precluding summary dismissal.

Contractual IndemnitySummary JudgmentThird-Party ComplaintRetroactive ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LawLabor LawAppellate DivisionScaffolding AccidentPersonal InjuryConstruction Project
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Herring

County Court granted Joseph F. Cawley enhanced assigned counsel fees under "extraordinary circumstances" according to County Law § 722-b, exceeding statutory limits. The County of Broome appealed, arguing a question of statutory construction regarding whether "foregoing limits" in § 722-b applied to hourly rates or only total amounts. The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive, viewing it as an attempt to appeal a discretionary award. Citing precedent, including Matter of Werfel v Agresta and Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N. Y. (Bodek), the court affirmed that trial court orders on enhanced fees are administrative and not subject to appellate judicial review on the merits. Consequently, the appeal brought by the County of Broome was dismissed with costs.

Assigned Counsel FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionCounty Law 722-bAdministrative ReviewJusticiable ControversyHourly RatesFee Schedules
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2009

Tullino v. Pyramid Companies

The case involves an appeal by third-party defendant Terra Firma Construction Corp. from an order denying its motion for summary judgment to dismiss a third-party cause of action for contractual indemnification. The underlying action concerns personal injuries sustained by a plaintiff due to exposure to fireproofing material at a construction site. Third-party plaintiffs, including premises owners and contractors, brought an indemnification claim against Terra Firma, the injured plaintiff's employer. Terra Firma argued there was no contractual indemnification agreement. The Supreme Court found a triable issue of fact regarding whether a purchase order and an unsigned "Appendix A" constituted a binding indemnification agreement between Terra Firma and third-party plaintiff HRH Construction Interiors, Inc. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that a factual dispute existed regarding the parties' intent to be bound by Appendix A.

Workers' Compensation LawContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionEmployer LiabilityPersonal Injury DamagesThird-Party ActionConstruction AccidentExpress AgreementPurchase OrderSubcontract Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 16, 2012

Grant v. City of New York

The case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning a personal injury action. The plaintiff was injured after falling from a ladder while performing electrical work and asserted claims under Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6), and common-law negligence against the City of New York. The City, in turn, filed a third-party action for contractual indemnification against the plaintiff's employer, A & S Electric, Inc. The appellate court modified the original order by granting the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment on liability under Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) and granting the City's cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. Additionally, the court affirmed the grant of summary judgment to the City on its contractual indemnification claim against A & S Electric, Inc.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction AccidentLadder SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual IndemnificationEmployer LiabilityThird-Party ActionNegligence
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 2,050 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