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

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

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal
References
5
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

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. 38 East 29 Street, Inc.

A workers’ compensation insurance carrier initiated an action to enforce its lien for $16,567.14 in past benefits paid to employee-claimant Joseph Walsh, against an $85,000 settlement Walsh received in a third-party action. The Supreme Court ruled that the plaintiff's lien should be reduced by Walsh's litigation costs, taking into account the benefits the plaintiff received from recouping past payments and extinguishing future compensation obligations. This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division, which then certified a question to the higher court. The primary issue before the court was whether the extinguishment of future compensation payment obligations should be considered a benefit to the carrier when equitably apportioning litigation costs. The court confirmed that such extinguishment should indeed be considered a benefit for cost assessment, thereby affirming the Appellate Division's order.

Workers' CompensationInsurance LienEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsFuture BenefitsThird-Party ActionSettlementSubrogationAppellate Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund v. Brooklyn Barber Beauty Equipment Co.

The State Insurance Fund (SIF) sued Pet Lift Ltd. and Brooklyn Barber Beauty Equipment Co., Inc. to recover unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums and associated collection costs. Defendant Pet Lift Ltd. sought summary judgment, arguing SIF failed to comply with State Finance Law § 18 (10) by not determining if immediate debt collection would jeopardize the debtor's fiscal viability and cause public hardship. The court clarified that SIF has a mandatory duty to evaluate all debt collection cases for potential public hardship, regardless of a specific debtor request. Additionally, the court discussed the prerequisites for SIF to recover collection costs under State Finance Law § 18 (5), requiring proof of estimated costs, bill transmission, and a liquidated debt. Ultimately, the court denied Pet Lift's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding SIF's adherence to the statutory requirements.

Workers' Compensation InsuranceUnpaid PremiumsDebt Collection PracticesSummary Judgment MotionState Finance Law § 18Statutory InterpretationPublic Hardship DeterminationFiscal ViabilityCondition PrecedentAdministrative Guidelines
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1988

De Coste v. Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital

Decedent, Darwin A. De Coste, experienced chest pain and elevated blood pressure, leading him to Champlain Valley Physicians Hospital where he was seen by Dr. William Amsterlaw. Amsterlaw diagnosed reflux esophagitis despite an abnormal electrocardiogram, discharging De Coste, who subsequently suffered a fatal cardiopulmonary arrest 12 hours later. The administrator of De Coste's estate filed a wrongful death action, alleging medical malpractice and that the misdiagnosis was the proximate cause of death. A jury awarded pecuniary damages and funeral expenses, which the defendants appealed. The appellate court affirmed the verdict, finding rational support for the jury's malpractice finding and rejecting the defendants' argument to reduce the award by Social Security benefits due to the effective date of CPLR 4545 (c).

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathProximate CauseCollateral Source RuleCPLR 4545Jury VerdictEmergency Room CareMisdiagnosisArteriosclerosisMyocardial Infarction
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

DiPerna v. American Broadcasting Companies

Plaintiff Giovannino DiPerna, injured at a construction site, sued American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. (ABC), who then impleaded other parties including Corinno Civetta Construction Corporation. A jury found no fault on the part of ABC or the third-party defendants, prompting ABC to seek contractual indemnification from Corinno Civetta for its defense costs. The IAS Court denied ABC's claim, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court held that the broad indemnification provision entitled ABC to defense costs, irrespective of a fault finding by Corinno Civetta, and an indemnity claim could be asserted via a third-party action. The court further rejected arguments that ABC's separate plenary action or its insurance coverage negated its standing to pursue this claim, remanding the matter for a hearing on damages.

Contractual IndemnificationDefense CostsThird-Party ActionsAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentsContract InterpretationSubcontractor LiabilityAgent LiabilityJury FindingsConditional Judgments
References
9
Case No. ADJ3341185 (SJO 0254688)
Regular
Jan 07, 2011

JOYCE GUZMAN vs. MILPITAS UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT, KEENAN & ASSOCIATES

This case concerns an award of appellate costs to the applicant, Joyce Guzman. The Court of Appeal affirmed the Appeals Board's decision and the Supreme Court denied the defendant's petition for review. Following this, the Court of Appeal issued a remittitur awarding costs to the applicant under Labor Code section 5811. The applicant requested $2,686.60 in appellate costs, which the Appeals Board found reasonable and awarded.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardMilpitas Unified School DistrictKeenan & AssociatesAppellate CostsLabor Code § 5811Court of AppealRemittiturPetition for ReviewItemized RequestReasonable Costs
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 1989

Wolf v. 2539 Realty Associates

This case concerns a dispute between a landlord and tenant over who should bear the cost of asbestos abatement in a leased parking garage. The building's structural steel was coated with asbestos, which, due to governmental regulations (OSHA, NYC Health Department), was deemed a hazardous condition requiring removal or encapsulation. The landlord invoked lease provisions (repair clause and governmental compliance clause) to shift responsibility to the tenant. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the landlord is responsible for the abatement costs. The court reasoned that asbestos abatement is not a "repair" in the normal sense, as the material was functional for its original purpose, and the governmental compliance clause did not apply as the hazard was an inherent building characteristic rather than arising from the tenant's specific use or actions.

Asbestos AbatementTenant ResponsibilityLandlord ResponsibilityLease InterpretationStructural AlterationsGovernmental Compliance ClauseRepair ClauseHazardous MaterialsBuilding CodeNew York City Administrative Code
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 20,227 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