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

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Gans

This court opinion addresses whether a certified social worker can be qualified as an expert witness to provide testimony regarding a defendant's mental capacity to proceed and future competency. The defense sought to qualify Hillel Bodek, a certified social worker specializing in forensic clinical social work, as an expert witness for these purposes. The court meticulously reviewed the qualifications of clinical social workers, acknowledging their critical role in the diagnosis of mental disorders, including their involvement in the development of the DSM III. Despite statutory provisions in CPL article 730 outlining who may serve as psychiatric examiners, the court emphasized that other appropriately trained and experienced experts can also offer testimony on competence. Ultimately, the court ruled in the affirmative, concluding that certified social workers with demonstrated training and supervised clinical experience in diagnosis and capacity assessment are qualified to provide expert testimony on these crucial issues.

Expert Witness QualificationCertified Social WorkerMental Capacity AssessmentCompetency to ProceedForensic Mental HealthDiagnostic AssessmentPrognostic StatementsCriminal Procedure Law Article 730DSM IIINon-Medical Expert Testimony
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 28, 1997

Schomber v. Schomber

This case concerns a postjudgment application for a change of custody which was ultimately withdrawn without prejudice. The remaining issues for the court were the award and apportionment of counsel and expert fees. The court reviewed the affidavits of legal services and net worth statements from both the plaintiff and defendant, noting the defendant's superior earning capacity. It also addressed the fees for the Law Guardian and a forensic expert, whose qualifications were challenged by the plaintiff. The court affirmed the expert's role and fees, stating that licensure is not a prerequisite for court-appointed experts in this context. Ultimately, the court ordered the apportionment of legal, Law Guardian, and forensic expert fees between the parties, with the defendant responsible for 80% and the plaintiff for 20% of the expert and Law Guardian fees, based on their respective financial circumstances.

custody disputechild supportlegal feesexpert witness feesLaw Guardian feespostjudgment applicationmatrimonial lawfee apportionmentfinancial disclosureSuffolk Academy of Law
References
4
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision

Socha v. 110 Church, LLC

Plaintiffs, Marek Soeha, Jerzy Muszkatel, Tadeusz Kowalewski, Wla-dyslaw Kwasnik, and Waldemar Ropel, sought to compel expert testimony from non-retained physicians associated with the Mt. Sinai World Trade Center Medical Monitoring Program and a Workers’ Compensation physician. These "Non-Retained Experts" possess unique knowledge regarding the effects of World Trade Center dust but were unwilling to provide data or serve as expert witnesses due to time constraints and concerns about compromising neutrality. District Judge Alvin K. Hellerstein denied the plaintiffs' motion to compel depositions and amended expert disclosures, finding a lack of "substantial need" as the information was not unique and comparable witnesses were available. However, acknowledging the unparalleled scope of the Mt. Sinai WTC Health Program's research, the court ordered Mt. Sinai to produce its data, with appropriate redactions, following an established protocol.

Expert Witness DepositionMotion to CompelFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 26Non-Retained ExpertsWorld Trade Center LitigationMedical Monitoring ProgramDiscovery DisputeSubpoena Expert WitnessCausation TestimonyData Disclosure Order
References
3
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06114
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2022

Fernandez v. Taping Expert, Inc.

The plaintiff, Sandy Joel Fana Fernandez, appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which denied his motion to set aside a jury verdict. Fernandez was allegedly injured after falling from a scaffold while painting, claiming a Labor Law § 240 (1) violation against defendants Blima Ruchel Girls School and Keren Yad Veizer, Inc. The jury found the fall did not substantially cause his injuries, a finding supported by defense experts attributing injuries to degenerative causes. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the verdict was a fair interpretation of the evidence.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor LawJury VerdictAppellate ReviewCausationDegenerative InjuriesEvidence WeightMotion DenialProximate Cause
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00958
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Parking Expert, Inc. v. City of New York

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed a determination by the New York City Department of Finance (DOF) that Parking Expert, Inc. violated agency rules. Petitioners were found to have submitted approximately 70 fabricated documents with intent to deceive, leading to a three-year suspension from appearing before DOF's Parking Violations Bureau. The Court held that DOF's determination was supported by substantial evidence, given the extensive nature and similar manner of the fabricated submissions, which refuted petitioners' claims of isolated errors. Furthermore, the Court found the suspension period appropriate and not shocking to the conscience, rejecting arguments of retroactive rule application, improper cross-examination limits, or denial of due process. Consequently, the petition brought under CPLR article 78 was denied, and the proceeding dismissed.

Parking Violations BureauNew York City Department of FinanceDocument FabricationAdministrative SuspensionJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceIntent to DeceiveDue ProcessRetroactive Application
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07002 [188 AD3d 1524]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Walczak v. Asplundh Tree Expert Co.

Claimant Marian Walczak, an arborist, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that deemed his claim for occupational hearing loss untimely. Walczak worked for Asplundh Tree Expert Co. from 1998 to 2006 and filed his claim in 2017, listing the onset of hearing loss as December 27, 2006. The Board found the claim time-barred under Workers' Compensation Law § 28, asserting that Walczak knew or should have known of his hearing loss and its probable work-related cause by January 19, 2012, given his testimony and medical records. The Appellate Division affirmed, emphasizing that specialized medical knowledge is not required to trigger the 90-day limitations period under Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bb, and deference is given to the Board's findings of fact and credibility assessments.

Occupational Hearing LossTime-Barred ClaimWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Workers' Compensation Law § 49-bbStatute of LimitationsDate of DisablementKnowledge of DiseaseMedical Diagnosis Not RequiredAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 1983

People v. Austin

Defendant was convicted of manslaughter in the first degree and criminal possession of a weapon in the second degree after a jury trial, and her conviction was unanimously affirmed. She had been employed in a law firm and shot and killed a partner with whom she claimed to have had an affair, interposing an insanity defense. Testimony highlighted her intense relationships, pre-meditation (purchasing a handgun, making threats), and post-shooting statements indicating revenge. Expert forensic psychiatrists presented conflicting opinions on her mental state, with defense experts diagnosing paranoid schizophrenia and the prosecution's expert identifying personality disorders but affirming her awareness of her conduct. The jury found that the People disproved the insanity defense. Appellate challenges regarding the insanity instruction and prosecutor's summation were not preserved, and other contentions were deemed meritless.

Manslaughter First DegreeCriminal Possession of WeaponInsanity DefenseForensic PsychiatryParanoid SchizophreniaAppellate ReviewJury TrialPreserved ErrorPenal LawMurder Revenge
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 03, 1985

Fischer v. CGA Computer Associates, Inc.

Addison M. Fischer sought to confirm an arbitration award against CGA Computer, Inc., stemming from a dispute over employment and acquisition agreements related to computer software. Fischer alleged breach of contract due to unpaid royalties and lack of audits, while CGA sought declaratory relief concerning Fischer's obligations. The arbitration panel issued an award, which Fischer petitioned the court to confirm. The District Court for the Southern District of New York confirmed the arbitration award, modifying it to clarify that the "FINDINGS" section constituted declarations of rights and duties. The court denied Fischer's request for costs, concluding that CGA had not acted vexatiously or in bad faith. An addendum further clarified the court's jurisdiction, affirming that the contracts involved interstate commerce.

Arbitration ConfirmationContract DisputeSoftware RoyaltiesEmployment AgreementBreach of ContractRight of First RefusalNon-Compete ClauseJudicial Review of ArbitrationFederal JurisdictionInterstate Commerce
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2005

Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin

This case details an appeal by the Law Guardian for the children and the father from a Family Court order in Nassau County, entered December 12, 2005. The underlying proceeding aimed to modify a 2001 divorce judgment that had terminated the mother’s visitation rights. Appellants sought to vacate orders directing forensic examinations of the father and children, and to summarily dismiss the modification proceeding. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning one child as academic. It found the order for the father's examination erroneous but affirmed the discretion to order children's evaluations. However, in exercising its own discretion, the court granted the motion to vacate the forensic examinations for the minor children due to their opposition and prior trauma. The court denied the motion to summarily dismiss the mother's petition, allowing it to proceed to a hearing.

Child visitationDivorce judgment modificationForensic examinationsMental health evaluationAppellate reviewFamily Court ActChildren's welfareJudicial discretionLaw GuardianChildren's wishes
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,374 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