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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. ADJ3874707 (ANA 0393103)
Regular
Jul 01, 2009

WILLIAM MARCHESE vs. THE HOME DEPOT, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted By SEDGWICH CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

This case involves a worker's compensation claim where the applicant's former attorney, Krishna Gulaya, is facing potential sanctions. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is investigating allegations that Gulaya submitted a falsified Compromise and Release agreement, including improper witnessing and backdating of signatures. The WCAB has scheduled a conference solely to address the imposition of sanctions against Gulaya for this misconduct. Gulaya is ordered to appear at the conference to demonstrate good cause why sanctions should not be imposed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSanctionsApplicant's AttorneyCompromise and ReleaseWCJIndustrial InjuryFindings of FactAward and OrderSet AsideWitness Signatures
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Grasso

This dissenting opinion addresses an appeal from the denial of defendant Richard A. Grasso's CPLR 3211 (a) (7) motion to dismiss four causes of action brought by the Attorney General on behalf of the People of the State of New York. The Attorney General alleges that Grasso, as former Chairman and CEO of the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), received unlawful and excessive compensation, violating Not-For-Profit Corporation Law (N-PCL) sections concerning reasonable compensation, board approval of salaries, and prohibitions against loans to officers. The dissent argues that the Attorney General has standing under broad parens patriae power to protect the state's economic interests and public confidence in the NYSE, given its vital role in the economy. It asserts that the complaint sufficiently states claims for constructive trust, money had and received, violation of N-PCL 715 (f) regarding salary approval, and violation of N-PCL 716 concerning illegal loans, and thus the motion to dismiss was correctly denied.

Executive CompensationNot-For-Profit Corporation LawCorporate GovernanceParens PatriaeAttorney General StandingMotion to DismissCPLR 3211(a)(7)Fiduciary DutyUnjust EnrichmentConstructive Trust
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baird v. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Plaintiffs Rachel M. Baird and Bonnie Porter sued their former employer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, alleging gender discrimination for being placed on a 'non-partnership track' while men were on a 'partnership track.' They initially sought $1.25 million but accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment for $37,500 each, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court found them 'prevailing parties' but significantly reduced their requested attorneys' fees of $191,048.33 to $54,723.93, and costs to $7,506.23. This reduction was due to their limited success and weak evidence supporting their discrimination and constructive discharge claims. The court noted inconsistencies in Baird's deposition and Porter's personal reasons for leaving the firm, suggesting they realized their unlikelihood of prevailing.

gender discriminationequal pay actTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Lawattorneys' feesRule 68 offer of judgmentprevailing partylodestar calculationlimited successfee reduction
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Quinn v. State

The claimant, a former Assistant Attorney-General, alleged blindness resulted from an eye injury sustained in 1957 while employed by the New York State Attorney-General. He filed a claim for compensation in 1972, contending he provided notice to his employer and that an advance payment of compensation tolled the two-year Statute of Limitations. The Workers' Compensation Board disallowed the claim, finding it barred by untimely filing. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding there was no substantial evidence to support advance payment within the meaning of Workers’ Compensation Law, section 28, due to lack of employer knowledge of a work-related injury or direct medical care. The court also rejected the claimant's other contentions regarding adding documents to the record and his right to counsel.

Workers' CompensationStatute of LimitationsAdvance PaymentEmployer KnowledgeEye InjuryBlindnessNotice of InjuryCredibilityAppellate ReviewUntimely Claim
References
6
Case No. ADJ791588 (MON 0307563) ADJ349720 (MON 0307567)
Regular
Nov 04, 2013

DIANE VALENZUELA vs. VAN NUYS AWNING COMPANY, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a dispute over the disbursement of $52,500.00 in attorney's fees following a Compromise and Release agreement. Lien claimant, applicant's former attorneys, sought reconsideration of orders approving the settlement because they failed to protect the lien interests of former counsel. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to amend the orders, requiring the current attorneys or the defendant to hold the attorney fees in trust until a stipulation on division is reached by all relevant attorneys. Jurisdiction is reserved for the WCJ to resolve any fee disputes if not resolved promptly.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLien ClaimantReconsiderationCompromise & ReleaseAttorney FeeWCJPetition for ReconsiderationApplicant's Former AttorneysClient Trust AccountStipulation
References
0
Case No. ADJ1786826 (LAO0772803)
Regular
Sep 23, 2022

MICHAEL GUTIERREZ vs. ALPHA FOX TOWING COMPANY, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case concerns a dispute over $\$ 30,000$ in attorney's fees awarded to a former attorney. The applicant's current attorneys sought reconsideration of the Workers' Compensation Judge's order compelling them to pay this amount from the $\$ 180,000$ attorney fee approved in a settlement. The Board denied the petition, finding the WCJ properly allocated the fee, deeming the $\$ 30,000$ a reasonable portion of the total fee for the former counsel's services. The Board emphasized that attorney fees are subject to the Board's determination of reasonableness and that current counsel was unjustly enriched by attempting to retain the entire fee.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and Orderattorney's feesformer counsellien claimantCompromise and ReleaseState Compensation Insurance FundOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseunjust enrichment
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 4,232 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