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

Falbaum v. Pomerantz

Five former managerial employees of Leslie Fay sued four current employees and the company's outside counsel for age discrimination under federal (ADEA), New York State (NYHRL), Pennsylvania (PHRA), and New York City (NYCCRL) laws. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaints, arguing they are not subject to personal liability under ADEA, NYHRL, and PHRA, and for failure to exhaust administrative remedies under PHRA and NYCCRL. The court had previously dismissed legal malpractice and breach of fiduciary duty claims against Leslie Fay's general counsel and outside counsel. The court granted the motion to dismiss claims under ADEA, NYHRL, and PHRA, finding that these statutes generally do not impose personal liability on individual employees, but rather focus on employer liability. However, the court denied the motion to dismiss claims under the NYCCRL because its plain language explicitly allows for liability against "an employer or an employee or agent thereof", and plaintiffs demonstrated compliance with administrative requirements. Therefore, the case proceeds only on the New York City Civil Rights Law claims.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawPersonal LiabilityEmployer LiabilityADEANYHRLPHRANYCCRLRespondeat SuperiorMotion to Dismiss
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McLaughlin

The People moved to disqualify the Legal Aid Society from representing the defendant, Mr. McLaughlin, on the grounds that the Society had previously represented a key prosecution witness, Mr. Luis Elicier. The defense argued against the motion, citing timeliness and claiming no actual conflict of interest. The court, presided over by Justice Carol Berkman, found an actual conflict due to the Society's prior representation of Elicier and their stated intent to implicate him in the current crimes. Despite the defendant's desire to retain his chosen counsel and the Society's proposed 'Chinese Wall' defense, the court ruled that the conflict of interest was undeniable and ordered the disqualification of the Legal Aid Society. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and protecting the former client's confidences, overriding the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in this instance.

Attorney disqualificationConflict of interest (legal)Sixth Amendment right to counselAttorney-client privilegeEthical violationsCriminal defenseProsecution witnessFormer client representationJudicial ethicsNew York courts
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

London v. London

This case concerns a lawsuit filed by a former wife against her former husband, alleging unlawful interception and recording of her telephone conversations with their eight-year-old daughter. The defendant used an automatic answering machine attached to his home phone, where the daughter resided, to record these calls during 1973-1974, a period of their legal separation before their divorce. The plaintiff sought damages under 18 U.S.C. §§ 2511 and 2520, which prohibit willful wire communication interception and provide a civil cause of action. The Court, citing Simpson v. Simpson, dismissed the complaint, ruling that Congress did not intend these statutes to apply to a family member's interception of calls within the family home, regardless of the recording method or the specific family relationship.

Telephone EavesdroppingWire Communication InterceptionFamily LawDomestic DisputesPrivacyFederal JurisdictionMotion to Dismiss18 U.S.C. 251118 U.S.C. 2520Marital Home
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

S.M.S. v. D.S.

The plaintiff, a former wife, filed a post-judgment application seeking to hold the defendant, her former husband, in civil contempt for selling marital property in violation of automatic orders during their divorce proceedings. She also sought money judgments for unpaid support, distributive awards, and counsel fees. The defendant admitted to selling the property, using the proceeds for personal benefit, and failing to pay various court-ordered obligations. The court found the defendant in civil contempt, granted the plaintiff money judgments totaling $70,175, and granted her counsel a money judgment of $35,539. The court denied the plaintiff's request to reopen the trial, deeming it unnecessary due to the defendant's admissions. An application for additional counsel fees was denied without prejudice due to insufficient billing documentation. The defendant was ordered to purge his contempt by paying $150,000 by December 16, 2016, or face six months of weekend incarceration.

Contempt of CourtDivorce ProceedingsAutomatic Orders ViolationMarital Property SaleUnpaid SupportMoney JudgmentCounsel FeesCivil ContemptEquitable DistributionPost-Judgment Enforcement
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paulsen v. All American School Bus Corp.

This case addresses a motion by James G. Paulsen, Regional Director of the NLRB, along with former NLRB members Sharon Block, Richard F. Griffin, Jr., and former acting general counsel Lafe E. Solomon, to dismiss a counterclaim and third-party complaint. The counterclaim was filed by respondent bus companies who challenged the legitimacy of NLRB actions, arguing that the Board lacked a lawful quorum due to allegedly unconstitutional recess appointments. The court examined whether it had subject matter jurisdiction under the Mandamus Act (28 U.S.C. § 1361) or Leedom v. Kyne. It concluded that judicial review for the General Counsel's prosecutorial functions is unavailable and that an adequate remedy for constitutional challenges exists through circuit court review of a final NLRB order. The court also reaffirmed that the NLRB's delegation of Section 10(j) powers to the General Counsel was valid, irrespective of quorum issues, based on prior delegations and Second Circuit precedent, and that the complaint's issuance was subsequently ratified. Therefore, the court granted the motion to dismiss the counterclaim and third-party complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

National Labor Relations ActPreliminary InjunctionSubject Matter JurisdictionRecess Appointments ClauseMandamus ActUnfair Labor PracticesDelegation of AuthorityNLRB QuorumJudicial ReviewFederal Jurisdiction
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Grace PP.

This case involves an appeal from a County Court order in Saratoga County. The order directed respondent, as attorney-in-fact for Grace PP. (an alleged incapacitated person, AIP), to pay counsel fees to the AIP's assigned counsel and to the petitioner's counsel. The petitioner, a licensed social worker, initiated a Mental Hygiene Law article 81 proceeding to appoint a guardian for Grace PP., who suffered from dementia and required nursing home placement. County Court appointed a temporary guardian and ordered the respondent to pay counsel fees. The respondent appealed, arguing the AIP was indigent due to Medicaid benefits. The appellate court found no error or abuse of discretion in the County Court's award of counsel fees and affirmed the order, noting the record lacked evidence of the AIP's indigence despite her Medicaid recipient status.

Counsel FeesIndigenceMedicaid BenefitsAttorney-in-factGuardian AppointmentIncapacitated PersonDementiaNursing Home PlacementAppellate ReviewSaratoga County
References
3
Case No. ADJ6966914 ADJ6968091
Regular
Jul 11, 2011

PRIEST HOLMES vs. KANSAS CITY CHIEFS, GREAT DIVIDE INSURANCE, BERKLEY SPECIALTY UNDERWRITING MANAGERS, TRAVELERS INSURANCE

The Appeals Board dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration because the WCJ's order regarding Agreed Medical Examiners (AMEs) was not a final order. The Board also denied the defendant's Petition for Removal, finding no significant prejudice or irreparable harm to justify the extraordinary remedy. Furthermore, the defendant's request for removal concerning former defense counsel's testimony was untimely as the issue had already been submitted for decision. The defendant had argued its former counsel did not authorize the AME agreement and sought to introduce new evidence.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDJOINT FINDINGS AND ORDERSSPECIFIC INJURYCUMULATIVE INJURYPROFESSIONAL FOOTBALL PLAYERAGREED MEDICAL EXAMINERSAME agreementDEFENSE COUNSELPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONPETITION FOR REMOVAL
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Fernandez v. Royal Coach Lines, Inc.

Claimant's counsel appealed a decision by the Workers’ Compensation Board that reduced their previously awarded counsel fees from $2,800 to $450. The Board found the counsel's fee application, form OC-400.1, deficient as it failed to provide specific dates and time spent for each service, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.17 (d) and Board bulletin Subject Number 046-548. Additionally, counsel failed to disclose a prior $900 fee award. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, holding that the Board did not abuse its discretion in reducing the fees due to the non-compliant application. The court also clarified that prior holdings suggesting no requirement for time spent on services, such as in *Matter of Pavone*, should no longer be followed.

Counsel Fee ReductionWorkers' Compensation Board AppealFee Application Deficiencies12 NYCRR 300.17Appellate DivisionAdministrative DiscretionPermanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning CapacityPrior Fee DisclosureMatter of Pavone Overruled
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,627 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