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
Mar 02, 2001

In re Mary J.

Respondent, a 91-year-old widowed woman suffering from a fractured hip and extreme dementia, was admitted to a nursing home. A petitioner initiated a proceeding under Mental Hygiene Law article 81 to appoint a guardian for her personal needs and property management. The Supreme Court found the respondent incapacitated and appointed her children, Harold J. and Patricia N., as coguardians. The court also revoked a durable power of attorney and health care proxy previously executed by the respondent, citing her incapacity at the time of execution. Respondent and her daughter, Viola J., appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, concluding that the petition was sufficient, the appointment of guardians was proper, and the revocation of the power of attorney and health care proxy was justified. The court emphasized the need to keep the respondent in the Albany area, where she had resided all her life.

GuardianshipIncapacitated PersonDementiaMental Hygiene LawDurable Power of AttorneyHealth Care ProxyAppellate ReviewFiduciary DutyPersonal NeedsProperty Management
References
4
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 13, 1978

Hirschorn v. Attorney-General

This case involves petitioners' motion to quash subpoenas issued by the Attorney-General of the State of New York, who was investigating potential violations of the Donnelly Antitrust Act by doctors. The Attorney-General's inquiry focused on allegations that doctors conspired to boycott workmen's compensation and no-fault cases. Petitioners argued that the investigation infringed upon their First and Fifth Amendment rights, that the subpoenas were vague and overbroad, and that the medical profession was exempt from the Donnelly Act. The court denied the petitioners' motion to quash, upholding the Attorney-General's authority to conduct such investigations and issue subpoenas. Concurrently, the court granted the Attorney-General's cross-motion, dismissing the petition and quashing a subpoena served upon the Chairman of the Workmen's Compensation Board.

Antitrust LawSubpoenaDonnelly Antitrust ActAttorney General InvestigationMedical ProfessionWorkers' CompensationNo-Fault LawConstitutional RightsFreedom of AssociationDue Process
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Appointment of a Guardian of the Personal Needs & Financial Affairs of G.W.

Alan G.W. suffered a traumatic brain injury in 1992, leading to Marlene W. being appointed as his guardian in 1995. Due to her diminished capacity, Marlene W., through her daughter Carol A.R. acting under a power of attorney, petitioned for her own discharge as guardian and for Carol A.R.'s appointment as successor guardian. The court examined whether Carol A.R. could use the power of attorney for this purpose and affirmed its validity under General Obligations Law § 5-1502G (2). Noting Marlene's inability to continue and Carol's willingness and ability, the court granted the petition. Marlene W. was discharged as guardian, and Carol A.R. was appointed as the successor guardian for Alan G.W.

GuardianshipMental Hygiene LawPower of AttorneyFiduciary DutySuccessor GuardianDischarge of GuardianCourt EvaluatorEstate TransactionsIncompetent PersonCapacity
References
7
Case No. Index No. 500294/2018 Appeal No. 16497-16498-16499 Case No. 2022-00247, 2022-00958, 2022-01285, 2022-02741
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2023

Matter of Edgar V.L.

Alison L. initiated proceedings to appoint an Article 81 guardian for her incapacitated brother, Edgar V.L., alleging financial exploitation by Rachida Naciri, who later married Edgar and entered into a prenuptial agreement. Judy S. Mock was appointed temporary guardian and Gary Elias as counsel. Concerns arose when Mock and Elias failed to investigate the marriage and financial transactions. A special guardian, Lissett C. Ferreira, was subsequently appointed to investigate these matters. The Supreme Court removed Mock and discharged Elias due to conflicts of interest and dereliction of fiduciary duties, appointing successor guardian and counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed these orders, ruling that Alison L. had standing and that the court's actions regarding the appointments and removals were a proper exercise of discretion. The court also dismissed an appeal as moot.

Incapacitated personGuardianshipFinancial exploitationPrenuptial agreementFiduciary dutiesAttorney misconductSpecial guardianArticle 81Due processAppellate review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Toribio

The case involves an uncontested proceeding for an administrator to resign and for a successor to be appointed. The initial administrator, Jennifer, wishes to resign from her role in the estate of her three-year-old sister, Jannin, who died tragically. She requests the court appoint their father, Domingo Toribio, as the new administrator. The primary legal question addressed by Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen is whether Mr. Toribio, who only speaks, reads, and writes in Spanish, is qualified to serve as a fiduciary under SCPA 707 (2), which allows a court discretion to declare a person unable to read and write English ineligible. The court examines the legislative intent, relevant case law, and societal changes regarding disability and non-English-speaking populations, particularly in New York City. The opinion concludes that English language competence should not be a prerequisite for fiduciary status unless no reasonable accommodations are possible, and grants the application for Jennifer's resignation and Domingo Toribio's appointment, noting he and his counsel have established satisfactory communication.

Estate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFiduciary AppointmentLanguage BarrierEnglish ProficiencySCPA 707 (2)Multilingual SocietyJudicial DiscretionCivil RightsAccess to Justice
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State v. Philip Morris Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning the power of a Commercial Division Justice to initiate a sua sponte inquiry into an arbitration panel's award of legal fees rendered pursuant to a settlement agreement in a class action. The underlying litigation was initiated by the State of New York and its Attorney General against several tobacco companies. Justice Crane, who originally presided, approved a Master Settlement Agreement (MSA) that included a Fee Payment Agreement for private, binding arbitration of outside counsel's fees. Justice Ramos, who later took over the case, initiated a sua sponte inquiry into a $625 million arbitration award to outside counsel, citing CPLR Article 9 and inherent judicial authority, and appointed 'independent counsel' for the plaintiff class. The Appellate Division found that Justice Ramos lacked jurisdiction for such an inquiry, as the court's retained jurisdiction was limited to implementing or enforcing the Consent Decree, not modifying it. The court also held that Justice Crane's prior approval of the MSA, including the binding arbitration clause, was final and affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court further determined that CPLR Article 9 did not override the strong public policy favoring consensual arbitration in this context. Consequently, the Appellate Division reversed Justice Ramos's orders, dismissed his sua sponte proceeding, and vacated the appointment of independent counsel.

Arbitration Award ReviewAttorney Fees DisputeClass Action SettlementJudicial Sua Sponte AuthorityAppellate Court ReversalMaster Settlement AgreementJurisdiction LimitsCommercial Division PowersLegal Ethics InquiryTobacco Industry Litigation
References
27
Showing 1-10 of 21,769 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