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

McLean v. Village of Sleepy Hollow

Plaintiff Gary McLean, a former part-time Buildings Code enforcement Officer, sued the Village of Sleepy Hollow for retaliatory termination. The parties reached a settlement in March 2000, which included McLean's reinstatement, back pay, and attorneys' fees. However, the Village subsequently implemented new working hours for part-time employees, requiring them to work during weekdays, which conflicted with McLean's existing full-time job. McLean was consequently terminated again after being unable to comply with the new schedule. He filed a motion to enforce the original settlement, arguing the Village violated its terms by changing employment conditions, but the court denied his motion, ruling that the Village retained the right to alter job terms. The court, however, indicated that McLean might have grounds to move to set aside the settlement based on fraudulent inducement, given that new documents suggested the Village may have been aware of the impending changes before the settlement was reached.

Settlement enforcementRetaliatory terminationCivil service statusPart-time employment conditionsBreach of settlementMunicipal employmentRes judicataCollateral estoppelIssue preclusionArticle 78 proceeding
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Settlement Capital Corp.

Settlement Capital Corporation (SCC) sought court approval, under New York's Structured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA), to acquire $125,000 of a $225,000 annuity payment due to Richard C. Ballos on October 1, 2010. Ballos, a totally disabled father of two, agreed to transfer these rights for a net advance of $36,500, reflecting a 15.591% annual discount rate. The court, presided over by Justice Patricia E. Satterfield, denied the petition after a hearing on April 23, 2003. The decision hinged on a two-pronged test: whether the transfer was in Ballos's 'best interest' and if the transaction terms were 'fair and reasonable.' The court found that Ballos did not demonstrate 'true hardship' given his other income sources and previous transfer of structured settlement payments, concluding it was not in his or his dependents' best interest. Furthermore, the court deemed the 15.591% discount rate, resulting in Ballos receiving only 29% of the transferred amount, unconscionable and not 'fair and reasonable.'

Structured SettlementStructured Settlement Protection Act (SSPA)Annuity TransferDiscount RateBest Interest StandardFair and Reasonable StandardPayee ProtectionFinancial HardshipCourt ApprovalGeneral Obligations Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ronkese v. Tilcon New York, Inc.

Plaintiff, injured while working for Tilcon New York, Inc., sought to enforce a settlement stipulation that included the satisfaction of a workers' compensation lien. Defendant Tilcon argued that no such lien applied as the recovery was against an employer, not a third-party tortfeasor, and that federal maritime law precluded state workers' compensation benefits. The Supreme Court partially sided with defendant, denying the lien enforcement but awarding counsel fees. The appellate court reversed, holding that Workers' Compensation Law § 29 does apply to claims against employers and that federal law did not bar the plaintiff's claim for apportionment of litigation costs. The case was remitted to determine the equitable share of litigation expenses, while the counsel fee award was reversed.

Workers' Compensation LawLien EnforcementStipulation of SettlementEquitable ApportionmentLitigation CostsEmployer LiabilityFederal Maritime LawJones ActJudicial EstoppelAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 1998

Stoll v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

This case concerns an appeal regarding a stipulation of settlement in a personal injury claim, involving a workers' compensation lien. The plaintiff initially refused to sign the release, asserting that his continuing workers' compensation benefits should remain unaffected, contrary to his attorney's counsel. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to enforce the settlement and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to vacate it. The Appellate Division reversed this order, finding that the plaintiff's attorney, despite a factual dispute over actual authority, possessed apparent authority to enter into the settlement. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the stipulation and denied the plaintiff's cross-motion.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienStipulation of SettlementAttorney AuthorityApparent AuthorityMediationVacate StipulationAppellate ReviewNew York LawContract Enforcement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ochal v. Television Technology Corp.

David Ochal suffered severe electrocution injuries in a work-related accident in February 1988. His personal injury action was settled by stipulation in November 1999, which included a structured settlement and an agreement by a third-party defendant to pay $50,000, waive a substantial workers' compensation lien, and cover pre-settlement medical bills. In May 2004, Ochal moved to enforce the stipulation, seeking payment for approximately $20,000 in medical bills and a pro rata share of litigation costs from the third-party defendant's workers' compensation carrier. The Supreme Court denied his motion, and Ochal appealed. The appellate court affirmed the denial, ruling that Ochal had breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing by submitting medical bills 4.5 years post-settlement and that his claim for pro rata litigation costs lacked merit due to his failure to reserve this right during the settlement.

Structured SettlementStipulation of SettlementContract InterpretationImplied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair DealingWorkers' Compensation LienMedical BillsPro Rata Share of Litigation CostsAppellate ReviewBreach of ContractWaiver of Rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 20, 2002

Conway v. Brooklyn Union Gas Co.

Plaintiff Katrina Conway commenced an employment discrimination lawsuit against Brooklyn Union Gas Company. After extensive settlement discussions, the parties, through their attorneys, reached an oral agreement for $40,000, conversion of termination to resignation, a neutral reference, and withdrawal of all pending lawsuits. Conway subsequently attempted to renege on the agreement, stating she did not understand the terms regarding dismissal of pro se actions and felt the monetary amount was insufficient. The defendant moved to enforce the settlement, seeking an injunction against future lawsuits and attorney's fees. Magistrate Judge Levy recommended enforcing the oral settlement but denying the injunction and attorney's fees, finding that Conway's attorney had apparent authority and the parties intended to be bound. District Judge Gershon adopted this Report and Recommendation in its entirety, declaring the oral settlement enforceable.

Employment DiscriminationOral Settlement EnforcementAttorney Apparent AuthorityIntent to be BoundVexatious LitigationInjunction DenialAttorney Fees DenialRule 11 SanctionsContract LawFederal Civil Procedure
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2009

Massie v. Metropolitan Museum of Art

Plaintiff Richard Massie, proceeding pro se, filed a Title VII lawsuit against his employer, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, alleging race discrimination and retaliation. After partial dismissal, the remaining claims led to an oral settlement agreement for lost wages. Massie, citing mental infirmities and lack of full understanding, repudiated the agreement. Defendant moved to enforce the settlement. Magistrate Judge Michael H. Dolinger, evaluating the Winston factors and considering Massie's pro se status and mental health, recommended denying the enforcement motion. District Judge Jed S. Rakoff adopted this Report and Recommendation, denying the defendant's motion to enforce the oral settlement and remanding the case for further proceedings.

Settlement Agreement EnforceabilityOral AgreementPro Se LitigantMental Health ConsiderationsTitle VII LitigationRace Discrimination ClaimRetaliation ClaimWinston Factors AnalysisCPLR 2104Second Circuit Precedent
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2013

Palmer v. County of Nassau

The plaintiff, Alvin Palmer, initiated a lawsuit in 2010 against The County of Nassau and Sergeant Savino, alleging violations of his civil rights including race discrimination, retaliation, and creation of a hostile work environment. The parties reached a settlement agreement on March 25, 2011, for $90,000, but the defendants failed to honor their obligations. Despite repeated attempts by the plaintiff's attorney to enforce the settlement, the defendants' counsel remained unresponsive for approximately a year and a half. Consequently, Palmer filed motions to enforce the settlement and for sanctions, which were unopposed by the defendants. The court granted both motions, ordering the defendants to pay the settlement with 9% compound interest from March 25, 2011, and awarding attorney's fees to the plaintiff for the defendants' bad faith conduct in failing to comply with the settlement.

Settlement EnforcementSanctionsAttorney FeesBad Faith LitigationCivil Rights ActRace DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentContract LawFederal Court Procedure
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 1996

Torres v. Costich

Plaintiffs, the widow and son of Heberto Guzman Ortiz, initiated this action to enforce a previous settlement agreement of $10,000 against defendants, stemming from a wrongful death claim. Defendants cross-moved to vacate the settlement, asserting an unstated understanding that the State Insurance Fund would make the payment. Chief Judge Larimer found the settlement terms unambiguous and inadmissible to extrinsic evidence. The court granted plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement, including prejudgment interest from February 19, 1996, totaling $10,272.22. However, it denied the plaintiffs' request for attorney's fees, concluding that defendants' actions did not demonstrate bad faith.

Settlement EnforcementContract InterpretationParol Evidence RulePrejudgment InterestAttorney's FeesBad FaithMigrant Worker Protection ActWrongful DeathFederal JurisdictionContract Law Principles
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 2013

O'Connor-Goun v. Weill Cornell Medical College of Cornell University

Plaintiff Agnes O’Connor-Goun brought an action against Weill Cornell Medical College and Dr. Ronald G. Crystal under the False Claims Act, alleging retaliatory termination after she reported fraudulent misuse of federal research funds. The parties initially agreed to a settlement on January 17, 2013. Defendants moved to enforce this agreement when plaintiff attempted to revoke a subsequent draft settlement agreement from January 30, 2013, arguing it superseded the original. The Court ruled that the January 30 draft was not binding due to expressed intentions not to be bound, partial non-performance, incomplete terms, and the nature of such contracts requiring a fully executed writing, all in accordance with the Winston factors. The Court also rejected plaintiff's argument that the Older Worker Benefit Protection Act (OWBPA) implied a right to revoke the entire January 17 settlement, clarifying that OWBPA only impacts ADEA claims, which were not central to this case and were time-barred. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion to enforce the initial January 17, 2013 settlement agreement.

False Claims ActWhistleblower RetaliationSettlement EnforcementContract DisputeOWBPAADEA WaiverFour Factors TestNew York LawEmployment TerminationFraudulent Misuse of Funds
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,318 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