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

People v. Katakam

The defendant, a former computer consultant, was indicted on multiple computer crime charges for copying proprietary script files from Goldman Sachs before joining J.P. Morgan. The court considered motions to dismiss the indictment, evaluating the sufficiency of evidence for unlawful duplication of computer-related material, criminal possession, and computer trespass under Penal Law article 156. While finding insufficient evidence for computer trespass and one count of unlawful duplication due to the lack of unauthorized access or intent to commit trespass, the court upheld charges for unlawful duplication (based on economic value) and criminal possession. The judge denied the motion to dismiss in furtherance of justice, emphasizing the societal need to deter computer crime despite the defendant's personal consequences.

computer crimeunlawful duplicationcriminal possessioncomputer trespassindictmentPenal LawGrand Juryproprietary softwareGoldman SachsJ.P. Morgan
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Mount Hope Asphalt Corp.

The court reviewed Grand Jury proceedings concerning larceny and scheme to defraud charges. For 'Scenario A' larceny, charges against Mount Hope, Boyle, and Petrosky were not sustained, as environmental claims were deemed 'puffery' and no direct liability to generators was proven from DEC non-compliance. For 'Scenario B' larceny, fraud was evident, but the value for grand larceny was not sufficiently proven, leading to a reduction of these counts to petit larceny. The 'Scheme to Defraud' count against Mount Hope, Boyle, Petrosky, Disposal, Accardi, Amato, and O’Grady was dismissed due to immaterial representations, irrelevant activities, lack of proof, and duplicity, as it combined two distinct schemes with no common defendants. Consequently, the court directed the District Attorney to file a reduced indictment, dismissing some charges and reducing others.

Grand JuryIndictment ReviewLarcenyPetit LarcenyScheme to DefraudEnvironmental LawSufficiency of EvidenceDuplicitous CountsFalse PromisesMisrepresentation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 1991

United States v. Purvis

Defendants Cheryl Purvis and Cynthia Johnson, payroll clerks at a Veteran's Administration Medical Center in the Bronx, are facing charges including conspiracy, bribery, and theft of public monies. The government alleges they fraudulently manipulated payroll records, leading to inflated paychecks and then solicited kickbacks from co-workers who received these overpayments. The scheme was exposed when a co-worker reported an overpayment. The defendants moved to dismiss the bribery counts, arguing misinterpretation of 18 U.S.C. § 201 and duplication of theft charges. The court denied this motion, asserting the broad scope of § 201 and distinguishing the bribery from theft charges. Defendant Purvis also sought to sever her case, claiming prejudice from a joint trial due to potentially antagonistic defenses. This motion was also denied, as the court found insufficient grounds to justify severance based on factual inconsistencies rather than mutually exclusive defenses.

Criminal LawBriberyTheft of Public MoniesConspiracyMotion to DismissMotion for SeveranceFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedurePayroll FraudKickbacksJudicial Economy
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi

Claimant initiated a workers' compensation case, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge finding an employer-employee relationship with Executive Charge/Love Taxi. This finding was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which rejected the independent contractor argument. Executive Charge/Love Taxi appealed this interlocutory decision. The appellate court, citing precedent from *Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear*, determined that the Board's ruling on employment status was not a final or 'threshold legal issue' warranting immediate review. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the policy against piecemeal review of substantive issues in compensation cases.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorInterlocutory AppealAppellate ReviewJurisdictionPiecemeal ReviewBoard DecisionDismissed AppealWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holland Laundry, Inc. v. Simon

This case concerns an action brought by the plaintiffs to enjoin the defendants from pursuing certain charges before the State Labor Board. The court considered the respondent's motion to dismiss the amended complaint. The order granting this motion was affirmed. No opinion was provided for this decision, with Presiding Justice Lazansky, along with Justices Carswell, Johnston, Taylor, and Close, concurring.

InjunctionLabor LawMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintAffirmedCourt OrderConcurring Justices
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banner Employment Agency, Inc. v. O'Connell

This case concerns the annulment of a respondent's determination that a petitioner employment agency violated Section 185 of the General Business Law by charging an excessive fee. The dispute centered on the classification of an employee for fee calculation, with the respondent advocating for 'Class A1' and the petitioner for 'Class B'. The employee possessed an engineering background and technical experience. The court concluded that the employment did not fit into 'Class A1' or the professional aspect of 'Class B', instead falling under 'Class B's' residual 'other employment' category. Consequently, the respondent's initial determination was annulled.

Employment Agency FeesGeneral Business LawEmployment ClassificationStatutory InterpretationExcessive ChargeJudicial ReviewAnnulmentSkilled WorkerNon-Professional EmploymentClass B Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1998

Devlin v. City of New York

This personal injury action was brought by plaintiffs, including Claire Devlin, against Charge A Ride and Car Company, Inc., and individual drivers, following an accident involving two Charge A Ride cars. Charge A Ride sought summary judgment, arguing its drivers were independent contractors and it lacked vicarious liability. The Supreme Court denied this motion, and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The court found that a question of fact existed regarding the nature of the relationship, citing factors indicative of Charge A Ride's control over its drivers. A dissenting opinion argued insufficient control for an employer-employee relationship, but the majority emphasized that the issue, including whether Charge A Ride presented itself as the employer, should be resolved by a jury.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorEmployee StatusSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryCar Dispatch CompanyControl TestAppellate ReviewDissenting OpinionWorkers' Compensation
References
13
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01123
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2023

Matter of Kohn v. County of Sullivan

Burt Kohn, an administrator for the Sullivan County Adult Care Center, was terminated following a disciplinary hearing based on charges of misconduct and incompetence. The charges stemmed from allegations that he suggested a subordinate share login credentials for a CDC database and asked staff to volunteer to test positive for COVID-19. The Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the determination by annulling two charges related to 'directing' password sharing, finding only a 'suggestion' was made. However, it sustained charges of misconduct and incompetence for the suggestion itself, noting potential penalties for non-compliance with rules, and upheld charges regarding his inappropriate COVID-19 remarks. The court ultimately affirmed the termination penalty, deeming it proportionate given his role during the pandemic.

Civil Service LawMisconduct ChargesIncompetence ChargesEmployment TerminationDisciplinary ProceedingsSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue ProcessPassword Sharing ProhibitionCOVID-19 ReportingNursing Home Administration
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,050 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