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
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

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 181 v. Casatelli Electric, Inc.

The plaintiffs, comprising a union, various benefit funds, and a training committee, initiated a lawsuit against Casatelli Electric, Inc., its alleged alter egos William and Alberta Brittelli, D.C. Electric, and Reliance Insurance Company of New York, seeking to recover fringe benefit contributions, union dues, and vacation monies. The case primarily involved disputes over extensive discovery requests, including interrogatories and document production. A Magistrate Judge found the plaintiffs' discovery requests to be excessive and imposed limitations on the scope of initial discovery, reserving the possibility for further discovery at a later stage. The plaintiffs filed objections to these orders, which were reviewed by District Judge Pooler. The District Judge largely affirmed the Magistrate Judge's decisions, finding them not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, but did grant a minor modification regarding the production of educational and employment information for the Brittelli defendants and their son. Additionally, the defendants' request for attorney's fees was denied.

Discovery DisputeCorporate Veil PiercingAlter EgoSuccessor LiabilityFringe Benefit ContributionsUnion DuesVacation MoniesInterrogatoriesDocument ProductionMagistrate Judge Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hoffmann v. S.J. Hawk, Inc.

In an action seeking damages for personal injuries, the defendants initiated an appeal against two orders issued by the Supreme Court, Queens County. The first order, dated June 11, 1998, denied their motion for discovery related to earnings, no-fault benefits, and Workers’ Compensation benefits. The second order, dated September 14, 1998, rejected their request for the plaintiffs to provide authorization for obtaining Social Security Disability records. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the trial court appropriately exercised its discretion in limiting collateral source discovery. The ruling referenced City of Mount Vernon v Lexington Ins. Co. as a general precedent.

DiscoveryCollateral Source RulePersonal Injury DamagesNo-Fault InsuranceWorkers' Compensation BenefitsSocial Security DisabilityAppellate ProcedureEvidence RulesJudicial DiscretionCivil Procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 1990

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Valenzano

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund initiated an action against Marcello Valenzano, doing business as ABC Contracting Co., for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendant failed to comply with discovery requests, leading to an order conditionally striking his answer and later, a default judgment. Defendant's pro se motion to vacate the default judgment, asserting non-receipt of documents and partial compliance, was denied by the IAS court. The court found service proper and noted the defendant's failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the lower court acted within its discretion to strike the answer for willful failure to comply with discovery, considering the lack of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsFailure to ComplyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceVacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 1990

Mendelowitz v. Xerox Corp.

Plaintiff's decedent, a 'xerographer,' contracted mesothelioma from asbestos in Xerox copying machines, leading to his death. His wife, as administratrix, sued Xerox Corporation, alleging the cancer was caused by inhaling asbestos dust from the machines. The case primarily involved discovery disputes regarding plaintiff's requests for information on asbestos health effects and other lawsuits against Xerox. The Supreme Court initially granted Xerox's motion for a protective order, vacating or partially vacating several discovery requests. This appellate court modified the lower court's order, partially reinstating requests for lists of health claims made by Xerox employees related to asbestos exposure in copying machine manufacturing and fully reinstating requests for lists of lawsuits against Xerox concerning asbestos exposure from copying equipment, regardless of the specific model, while affirming the decision in other respects.

MesotheliomaAsbestos ExposureProduct LiabilityDiscovery DisputeCPLR 3120Protective OrderScope of DiscoveryDocument ProductionMedical InformationPrior Lawsuits
References
22
Case No. ADJ9230683
Regular
Jul 07, 2014

JOSE GARCIA, Jorge Garcia, JORGE LUIS GARCIA vs. RAMTEX INC.; EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY, RAMTEX INCORPORATED, EMPLOYERS COMPENSATION INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves a Petition for Removal filed by applicant Jose Garcia challenging an administrative law judge's discovery rulings. The applicant sought specific documents, including witness statements and employee handbooks, which the defendant claimed did not exist. The judge ordered the production of the personnel file but denied the request for other documents, finding the defendant's representations credible and applicant's discovery requests lacking due diligence. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Removal, adopting the judge's reasoning that the petition was untimely and that no prejudice or irreparable harm resulted from the discovery rulings.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardRamtex Inc.Employers Compensation Insurance CompanyADJ9230683Administrative Law JudgeReport of Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeVerified AnswerGood Faith InvestigationDeposition of Applicant
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. United States

The government sought reconsideration of the grant of Kevin Dean's coram nobis petition, arguing preclusion and requesting discovery on three elements for coram nobis relief. The court rejected the government's preclusion argument as waived and without merit. It denied discovery on 'continuing legal consequences' and 'compelling reasons,' finding Dean's job termination a clear civil consequence and actual innocence not a prerequisite for the writ. However, the court granted the government's request for discovery on the element of 'undue delay,' allowing inquiry into Dean's awareness of the conviction's collateral civil consequences prior to his termination.

Coram NobisReconsideration MotionExpungement of RecordDue ProcessGuilty PleaCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataCriminal Record AccuracyPublic LewdnessCivil Consequences
References
21
Case No. Docket # 45
Regular Panel Decision

Ward v. Empire Vision Centers, Inc.

Plaintiff Ernestine Ward filed suit against Empire Vision Centers, Inc., alleging discrimination based on race, color, and age, and retaliation under Title VII, ADEA, and New York Human Rights Law. The United States Magistrate Judge Marian W. Payson addressed several pretrial motions in the consolidated case. Ward's motion to amend the complaint was denied as moot, and her motions to unseal discovery documents were denied. While some aspects of her motions to compel discovery were granted, specifically regarding patient charts and appointment schedules, other discovery requests, including interrogatories to non-parties and subpoenas, were denied. Finally, Ward's request for appointment of counsel was denied without prejudice, and her motion to appear by telephone was granted in part.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIAge Discrimination in Employment ActNew York Human Rights LawPretrial DiscoveryMotion to Amend ComplaintMotion to Compel DiscoveryMotion to Unseal DocumentsAppointment of CounselMagistrate Judge Decision
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hualde v. Otis Elevator Co.

This case involves an appeal regarding a discovery dispute in an elevator negligence case. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied portions of the defendant's motion for a protective order and limited the plaintiff's demand for elevator maintenance records. The appellate court modified this order, granting further relief to the defendant by limiting specific discovery items requested by the plaintiff, such as statements made by the plaintiff and hospital records, and striking other broad requests. The court also affirmed the lower court's decision regarding the plaintiff's bill of particulars and the limitation of subsequent repair records and records for other elevators, citing prematurity and inadmissibility of subsequent repairs in negligence cases. The appellate court noted that plaintiff had consented to confidentiality for defendant's trade secrets. Overall, the decision aimed to narrow the scope of discovery.

Discovery disputeProtective orderElevator maintenance recordsNegligence caseAppellate reviewInformation limitationBill of particularsSubsequent repairs admissibilityConfidentiality agreementCivil procedure
References
3
Case No. Dkt. No. 63
Regular Panel Decision

Dunbar Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Landis Plastics, Inc.

Petitioner Sandra Dunbar, regional director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), sought to amend her petition and resume Section 10(j) injunction proceedings against respondent Landis Plasties, Inc. Landis opposed, arguing prior compliance with a settlement agreement, lack of NLRB authority to revoke it, undue delay, and bad faith, while also requesting discovery and evidentiary hearings. Judge Pooler found Landis' arguments lacked merit, emphasizing the liberal standard for amending pleadings and the NLRB's authority to revoke informal settlements. Consequently, the court granted the NLRB's motion to amend its petition and resume proceedings, denying Landis' requests for expedited discovery and an evidentiary hearing. The decision noted that affidavit evidence was sufficient for the Section 10(j) standard, which is highly deferential to the NLRB, and also granted the NLRB's motion for a discovery protective order.

Section 10(j) InjunctionNational Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticesMotion to AmendDiscovery DisputeSettlement RevocationFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureRegional Director AuthorityTemporary ReliefStatus Quo Ante
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 3,846 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