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

Eaton v. Chahal

This consolidated decision by Justice William H. Keniry addresses common discovery issues across six negligence actions in Rensselaer County Supreme Court. The primary focus is the requirement for a "good faith" effort to resolve discovery disputes, as mandated by section 202.7 of the Uniform Rules for Trial Courts (22 NYCRR). The court emphasizes that a "good faith" effort necessitates significant contact and negotiation between counsel. Due to a complete failure to comply with this rule, the motions and cross-motions in five cases (Eaton, Frament, Lindeman, Madsen, and Malave) are denied. In the Oathout case, the defendants' motion is conditionally granted, pending plaintiff's compliance with discovery demands. The court also outlines its position on substantive discovery issues like medical reports, collateral source information, statutory violations, age/date of birth, photographs, and authorizations for workers' compensation and no-fault insurance files.

Discovery disputesBill of particularsGood faith requirementCPLR Article 31Medical reportsCollateral source informationStatutory violationsWorkers' compensation filesNo-fault insurance filesJudicial discretion
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 15, 2018

Matter of Center for Discovery, Inc. v. NYC Dept. of Educ.

The Center for Discovery, Inc. appealed a lower court's dismissal of its CPLR article 78 petition against the NYC Department of Education. Petitioner sought reimbursement for additional, mandated services provided to a student with autism, which NYCDE refused to cover. The Supreme Court had dismissed the case, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that NYCDE's definitive refusal to pay constituted an exhaustion of administrative remedies. The matter is remanded to the Supreme Court to determine if NYCDE must reimburse The Center for Discovery for the services it explicitly required.

Education LawSpecial EducationIndividualized Education PlanAdministrative LawReimbursement DisputeCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewAutism Spectrum DisorderChildren with DisabilitiesGovernment Liability
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Millennium Global Emerging Credit Master Fund Ltd.

This memorandum addresses a dispute between the Liquidators of two Bermuda-based investment funds (Master Fund and Feeder Fund) and BCP Securities LLC. The Liquidators sought to compel BCP to produce documents concerning the Funds' financial affairs and assets, following the U.S. Bankruptcy Court's recognition of the Bermuda liquidation proceedings under Chapter 15. BCP resisted discovery, arguing lack of nexus to U.S. property, the pending proceeding rule concerning a U.K. arbitration (to which BCP is not a party), and the Stored Communications Act. Additionally, BCP filed a separate motion to vacate the recognition order, despite having an appeal on the same matter pending in the District Court. The Court granted the Liquidators' motion to compel discovery, finding the requested documents directly relevant under 11 U.S.C. § 1521(a)(4), and dismissed BCP's motion to vacate for lack of jurisdiction due to the ongoing appeal.

BankruptcyChapter 15Foreign Main ProceedingForeign Nonmain ProceedingDiscoveryDocument ProductionRule 2004Stored Communications ActAppealJurisdiction
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Napoleoni v. Union Hospital of the Bronx

This case involves an appeal concerning discovery motions in a medical malpractice lawsuit filed by Rosemarie Carreras and Jade Napoleoni against doctors Sushila Gupta, Geraldine Ahneman, and St. Barnabas Hospital. The plaintiffs alleged negligence during prenatal care that led to Jade's severe abnormalities from placental abruption. Defendants sought to compel disclosure of Rosemarie Carreras's substance abuse treatment records, arguing a link between cocaine use during pregnancy and placental abruption. The Supreme Court initially denied extensive discovery, but the appellate court modified this decision. It ordered specific records from Daytop Village and St. Barnabas Hospital to be turned over and allowed further deposition of Carreras regarding her substance abuse during pregnancy, ruling that the plaintiff waived physician-patient privilege and that the public interest in discovery outweighed confidentiality.

Medical MalpracticeDiscovery DisputeSubstance Abuse RecordsPrenatal NegligencePlacental AbruptionPhysician-Patient PrivilegeWaiver of PrivilegeConfidentialityAppellate CourtCPLR
References
8
Case No. ADJ7715131
Regular
Jun 28, 2017

CHRISTINE CHAVEZ vs. YOUNG'S MARKET COMPANY, LLC, CANNON COCHRAN MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought removal of an order staying discovery pending a Mandatory Settlement Conference (MSC). The defendant argued the stay caused irreparable harm, preventing them from discovering the impact of the applicant's recent back surgery. The Appeals Board granted removal, agreeing that the premature closure of discovery would cause prejudice. They returned the case to the trial level to expedite an MSC for a proper determination on additional discovery.

Petition for RemovalMandatory Settlement Conferencesubstantial prejudiceirreparable harmadditional discoverylabor code section 5502(d)(3)lumbar spinecumulative trauma injuryvocational rehabilitation evaluationagreed medical evaluator
References
1
Case No. ADJ9074792
Regular
Feb 27, 2014

SHAWNA PARKER vs. SONORA REGIONAL MEDICAL CENTER

The Appeals Board denied Defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to rescind an order continuing the case for trial and keeping discovery open. Defendant argued discovery was incomplete due to a lack of QME reports and inability to depose witnesses. The Board adopted the WCJ's report, stating the trial judge could address any QME delays and assess the defendant's due diligence regarding discovery at the trial. A dissenting commissioner believed the complex claim warranted taking the case off calendar pending further medical evaluation.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical Evaluator (QME)Labor Code section 4062.2due diligencecontinuanceindustrial injurychemical exposurerespiratory systemanaphylaxiscardiac
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. All Funds on Deposit in Business Money Market Account No. 028-0942059-66

This is a civil forfeiture case initiated by the United States Government. Defendant Nat Schlesinger filed a motion to transfer the case to the Brooklyn Division of the Eastern District, and the government filed a motion to stay discovery pending a related criminal proceeding. The court denied the defendant's motion to transfer, finding no compelling evidence that transfer was necessary for the convenience of parties, witnesses, or in the interest of justice. The court granted the government's motion to stay discovery, determining that civil discovery would adversely affect the ongoing criminal investigation and prosecution, as mandated by 18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1).

Civil ForfeitureMotion to Transfer VenueMotion to Stay DiscoveryRelated Criminal ProceedingsJudicial Guidelines18 U.S.C. § 981(g)(1)Venue TransferEastern District of New YorkCase ManagementJudicial Discretion
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bartels v. Rubel Corp.

The plaintiff, chairman of the Brewery Workers’ Pension Fund, seeks to hold an unnamed defendant accountable for an uncollected judgment exceeding $10,000. This judgment was originally obtained against Ebling Brewing Company, Inc., for unpaid pension fund contributions. The plaintiff alleges that Ebling was the defendant's wholly-owned subsidiary, operating as its agent under the defendant's extensive control. While the defendant moved for summary judgment, the plaintiff concurrently pursued discovery and inspection of the defendant's records. The court granted the plaintiff's discovery motion and decided to hold the summary judgment motion in abeyance, emphasizing the necessity for the plaintiff to access facts uniquely within the defendant's knowledge before a final determination.

Summary JudgmentDiscoveryCorporate VeilParent-Subsidiary LiabilityUnpaid ContributionsPension FundJudgment EnforcementInterlocutory OrderProcedural RulingAffiliation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Notaro v. Koch

The plaintiffs (James Notaro, George Longworth, and Pearse O’Callaghan), members of the Liberal Party, sued Edward Koch, Mayor of New York City and a gubernatorial candidate, alleging violations of their First Amendment rights. They claimed Koch threatened to fire Liberal Party members from state payroll if elected Governor and sought a permanent injunction under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The plaintiffs filed a motion for expedited discovery to depose Koch within 30 days. The court denied this motion, finding the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate irreparable injury, a strong probability of success on the merits, a connection between expedited discovery and avoiding injury, or that their potential injury outweighed the defendant's burden. The court also noted weaknesses in their legal arguments, including prematurity and lack of state action, but denied the motion without prejudice, allowing them to refile with a stronger case.

Political AffiliationFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechExpedited DiscoveryCivil RightsIrreparable InjuryPreliminary InjunctionFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 30(a)Constitutional LawGubernatorial Election
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,984 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