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. 533323
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Mark Mogilevsky

Claimant Mark Mogilevsky, a former train car inspector, sought workers' compensation benefits for occupational binaural hearing loss. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge established the claim and found a 3.3% schedule loss of use, which the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. Mogilevsky appealed, challenging the Board's decision to reject the medical opinion of his otolaryngologist, Dr. Michael Alleva, who assessed a 45.3% hearing loss. The Board had dismissed Alleva's findings, stating he failed to explain how Mogilevsky could work with nearly 50% hearing loss without deficits. The Appellate Division found no evidence in the record to support the Board's rationale for rejecting Dr. Alleva's opinion. Consequently, the court concluded that the Board's decision lacked substantial evidence and reversed the decision, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Occupational Hearing LossWorkers' CompensationMedical EvidenceSchedule Loss of UseBinaural Hearing LossSubstantial EvidenceCredibility AssessmentMedical Expert OpinionAppellate ReviewReversal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05319 [119 AD3d 766]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Siekkeli v. Mark Mariani, Inc.

In an action for personal injuries, plaintiff Mika P. Siekkeli was allegedly injured while working at Mark Mariani, Inc., when a heavy door fell on him. He sued Mariani and Mark Varley. Mariani then filed a third-party action against its insurance broker, Frank Crystal & Co., alleging inadequate coverage. The Supreme Court denied summary judgment motions by Varley and Mariani, citing triable issues regarding Siekkeli's employment status, but granted Crystal's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed the order, finding that the Workers' Compensation Board has primary jurisdiction to determine employment status and that the Supreme Court erred in granting Crystal's motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentInsurance Broker NegligenceThird-Party ActionEmployment StatusPrimary JurisdictionAppellate ReviewCoverage DenialIndependent Contractor
References
8
Case No. 533583
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael Powers

Claimant Michael Powers, a delivery truck driver, appealed decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. He sought benefits for back injuries from repetitive stress, but the Board disallowed his claim, finding no causally-related occupational disease. This reversal stemmed from the Board's determination that claimant's counsel engaged in improper ex parte communication with treating physician Mark Sterling, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 13-a (6). The Board concluded that this communication undermined Sterling's medical opinion regarding causation and therefore rejected his findings. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decisions, finding its determination supported by substantial evidence and its denial of reconsideration was not arbitrary or capricious.

Occupational DiseaseCausal RelationMedical Opinion InfluenceEx Parte CommunicationWorkers' Compensation LawSubstantial EvidenceCredibility DeterminationRepetitive Stress InjuryBack InjuryDelivery Truck Driver
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Bosswick

Michael Thompson, a former estate manager for the Riverside Trust, sued its trustees Mark Bosswick and Sanford E. Ehrenkranz, and manager Peter Lambert. Thompson alleged defamation, tortious interference with prospective business and contractual relations, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of contract related to a confidentiality agreement, breach of contract for severance pay, negligent misrepresentation, and tortious interference with employment relations. He claimed Lambert defamed him by spreading false information about kickbacks and misconduct to employment agencies and the Trust's principals, costing him job opportunities. The defendants filed a motion for summary judgment. The court granted the motion on all counts except for the defamation claim, which was granted in part and denied in part. Specifically, defamation claims concerning statements to Vincent Minuto and Lynn Warren survived, while others were dismissed due to lack of evidence or qualified privilege.

DefamationSummary JudgmentTortious InterferenceBreach of ContractAt-Will EmploymentQualified PrivilegeNegligent MisrepresentationEmployment LawSlanderKickbacks
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Michael B.

This appeal concerns six-year-old Michael B., born with cocaine toxicology and placed in foster care with his foster parents (appellant foster mother and Quintín L.). Following a prior reversal by the Appellate Division, which mandated a best-interests hearing, the Family Court awarded custody to Michael's natural father. The Appellate Division now reverses this decision, finding that the child's best interests are served by awarding custody to the foster parents. The court cited the child's strong bond with his foster parents, the natural father's deficient parenting, lack of emotional support, and potential for emotional and physical harm. The case is remitted to the Family Court, Kings County, for a hearing to determine the father's visitation rights.

Parental Rights TerminationChild CustodyBest Interests of ChildFoster CareChild NeglectPsychological EvaluationFamily LawAppellate ReviewParental FitnessVisitation Rights
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04872 [208 AD3d 1046]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2022

Perri v. Case

Plaintiff Michael Perri sued defendant Mark Case, doing business as Case's Mini Storage, alleging breach of contract and seeking specific performance related to a right of first refusal for leased property. The Supreme Court, Ontario County, granted Perri's motion for summary judgment. Case appealed this order and judgment (Appeal No. 1), also appealing the denial of a motion to reargue/renew (Appeal No. 2), and an order holding him in civil contempt (Appeal No. 3). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment in Appeal No. 1. Appeal No. 2, which sought reargument, was dismissed as non-appealable. In Appeal No. 3, the Cook defendants' appeal was dismissed, and Case's appeal challenging the civil contempt finding was rejected, thereby upholding the contempt order.

Breach of ContractRight of First RefusalSummary JudgmentDeclaratory JudgmentSpecific PerformanceCivil ContemptAppellate ReviewReal PropertyLease AgreementWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Endico v. Fonte

Plaintiff Michael Endico sued Mark and William Fonte and their entities, alleging fraudulent inducement to transfer a two-thirds interest in 9 South First Avenue Associates, LLC, without payment, and subsequent asset looting. Endico's sole basis for federal jurisdiction was a claim under Section 10(b) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and Rule 10b-5, arguing that the membership interests were 'securities.' The court denied Endico's motion for a preliminary injunction and granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. The court found it highly doubtful that Endico would succeed in proving the membership interests were 'securities' under the Exchange Act, as he retained significant control, including sole signatory power over the company's checking account and veto power over asset sales/encumbrances. Therefore, the federal claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, without prejudice to refiling in state court.

Securities Exchange ActRule 10b-5Investment ContractW.J. Howey TestPreliminary InjunctionMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFraudulent InducementPassive InvestorLLC Membership Interest
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. v. Hirschfeld

Plaintiffs Garrick-Aug Associates Store Leasing, Inc. and Charles Aug filed an action against defendants Michael Hirschfeld, The Hirschfeld Companies, Inc., European American Bank (EAB), Paul Arendt, and Mark Anderson, alleging a pattern of racketeering activity under RICO. The plaintiffs claimed that Hirschfeld, with the complicity of EAB employees Arendt and Anderson, misappropriated corporate funds through unauthorized loans and the mishandling of a Treasury Bill, using EAB accounts. Defendants moved to dismiss the RICO claims for failure to state a claim and state law claims for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The court determined that the mailings cited by plaintiffs were not

Racketeering ActivityRICO ActMail FraudScheme to DefraudMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFederal JurisdictionRule 12(b)(6)Rule 12(b)(1)Enterprise
References
11
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 05293 [119 AD3d 718]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2014

Caiazzo v. Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc.

Ronald Caiazzo, Jr. sued Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., Julia Coen, and Ana Reyes for personal injuries sustained while installing an air conditioning system at a house owned by Julia Coen. Caiazzo fell from a makeshift step, alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), 241(6) and common-law negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing certain claims. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6) claims against Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc., and Labor Law §§ 240(1) and 241(6) claims against Julia Coen, citing the homeowner exemption for Coen. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment to Mark Joseph Contracting, Inc. on the common-law negligence claim, granting dismissal. The denial of summary judgment for Julia Coen on Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence was affirmed, as triable issues of fact remained regarding her notice of a dangerous condition.

Personal InjuryLabor LawConstruction SiteSummary JudgmentCommon-law NegligenceElevated Work SiteDangerous ConditionHomeowner ExemptionAppellate ReviewSuffolk County
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 2,331 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