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. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hill v. Delta International MacHinery Corp.

Gregory Hill sued Delta International Machinery Corp. and Home Depot U.S.A. Inc. for personal injuries sustained while using a power saw. The suit, initially filed in New York state court, was removed to federal court after a non-diverse defendant, Hill's employer AD Mfg., was dismissed. Hill subsequently moved for the case to be remanded back to state court, arguing that the removal was untimely, occurring more than one year after the original complaint. Defendants opposed, seeking an equitable extension of the removal period due to alleged fraudulent joinder of AD Mfg. The court, presided over by Judge Scheindlin, granted Hill's motion, concluding that the defendants failed to prove either fraudulent joinder or strategic behavior by the plaintiff that would justify extending the one-year removal limit.

Removal JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionFraudulent JoinderEquitable ExtensionTimeliness of RemovalFederal CourtState CourtRemandPersonal InjuryProduct Liability
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McAllister v. Renu Industrial Tire Corp.

The plaintiff, injured by a split-rim tire assembly during employment, sued his employer (the defendant) for 'fraudulent and intentional' impairment of his right to sue the manufacturer, alleging destruction of evidence. The defendant's president had assured the plaintiff of workers' compensation coverage, and the assembly was discarded later. Both parties testified there was no agreement to preserve the assembly. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendant, stating employers lack a duty to preserve such instrumentalities without prior agreement. The appellate court affirmed, finding no duty as the assembly was innocently discarded before notice of a potential lawsuit.

Destruction of EvidenceSpoliation of EvidenceSummary JudgmentEmployer LiabilityWorkers' CompensationDuty to PreserveThird-Party LawsuitAppellate ReviewFraudulent ConductTortious Conduct
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2014

Gallen v. County of Rockland

This case concerns an appeal by defendants Jay L. Lombard and Brain Behavior Center-Rockland from the denial of their motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice and wrongful death action. The plaintiff's decedent, after a suicide attempt, was discharged from Valley Hospital with a safety contract. The same day, he was seen by defendant Lombard, a neurologist, who performed a suicide assessment, prescribed medication, and concluded there was no immediate risk, but the decedent committed suicide a week later. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, and the appellate court affirmed, finding a triable issue of fact regarding whether Lombard departed from good medical practice by failing to obtain prior records and conducting an inadequate suicide assessment.

Medical MalpracticeWrongful DeathSuicide AssessmentNeurologist LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStandard of CareProximate CausePatient DischargePsychiatric Treatment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Holt Construction Corp. v. Grand Palais, LLC

Holt Construction Corp. initiated an action against Grand Palais, LLC, Grand Palais Development, Inc., Platte River Insurance Company, and Howard Lepow, seeking to foreclose a mechanic’s lien, set aside fraudulent conveyances, and recover damages for diversion of trust assets. The Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of Holt on multiple causes of action. Defendants appealed, and Holt cross-appealed from portions of the judgment entered January 19, 2012. The appellate court dismissed certain appeals, modified the judgment by dismissing the seventh cause of action and portions of the twelfth and thirteenth causes of action related to Lien Law § 13 (5), and reversed the dismissal of claims against Howard Lepow for violations of Lien Law §§ 72 and 77, awarding judgment in favor of Holt against Lepow for $935,342.55. As modified, the judgment was affirmed with costs to the plaintiff.

Mechanic's LienFraudulent ConveyanceDiversion of Trust AssetsDebtor and Creditor LawLien LawAppellate ReviewJudgment ModificationNonjury TrialCorporate Officer LiabilityConstruction Contract
References
11
Case No. ADJ685961 (VEN 0120428) ADJ3005615 (PAS 0035964)
Regular
Aug 06, 2018

STEPHANIE CURRY vs. PACIFIC CARE BEHAVIORAL HEALTH CARE, INC., THE TRAVELERS INSURANCE COMPANY, ROSEMARY COTTAGE, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION, FREMONT INDEMNITY COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

Applicant Stephanie Curry suffered industrial injuries from employment with Pacific Care Behavioral Health Care, Inc. and Rosemary Cottage, leading to disputes regarding the scope of injury and compensation. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration of prior awards against CIGA and Travelers Insurance Company. Ultimately, the parties entered into a Compromise and Release agreement, which the WCAB approved, resolving all claims for a settlement payment of $1,363,071.00 from Travelers to applicant, thereby rescinding the prior findings and awards.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardStephanie CurryPacific Care Behavioral Health CareInc.Fremont Indemnity CompanyliquidationSedgwick Claims Management Servicesconsequential injurynew and further disabilitytemporary partial disability
References
0
Case No. ADJ4552841 (SBR 0338344)
Regular
Oct 03, 2014

ANTONIO PONCE GONZALEZ, vs. GRUMA CORPORATION; TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA,

Defendant Gruma Corporation filed a Petition for Removal challenging the trial setting order and alleging applicant's fraudulent concealment of subsequent employment. However, at a subsequent hearing, the defendant withdrew its Petition for Removal. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as withdrawn and moot. The Board also admonished defense counsel for behavior at a prior hearing that could warrant sanctions.

Petition for RemovalWCABWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDiscoveryTrial SettingFraudulent ConcealmentWithdrawn PetitionMoot PetitionSanctionsInsolent Behavior
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scheidt v. Oberg

This case is an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to the defendants in a dog bite incident. The plaintiff sued after being bitten by the defendants' dog, Ziggy. To recover, the plaintiff needed to prove that the dog had vicious propensities and that the owners knew or should have known of them. The defendants presented evidence of no prior aggressive behavior or complaints. While the plaintiff described Ziggy barking, growling, and eventually biting him, he failed to provide evidence of the dog's known prior aggressive behavior or the owners' knowledge. A witness also testified to aggressive behavior but admitted not reporting it to the owners. The Supreme Court's decision to grant summary judgment to the defendants was affirmed due to the plaintiff's failure to meet the burden of proof regarding the dog's vicious propensities and the owners' knowledge.

Dog biteAnimal attackVicious propensitiesOwner knowledgeSummary judgmentAppellate reviewBurden of proofPrior aggressive behaviorSaratoga CountyCourt of Appeals
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2014

Priestley v. Panmedix Inc.

Katherine Priestley, a judgment creditor of Panmedix, Inc., initiated a lawsuit to set aside a Security Agreement between Panmedix and a group of its creditors (Respondent Creditors) as a fraudulent conveyance under New York Debtor and Creditor Law. The Security Agreement, executed after Priestley's security interest expired, granted interests in Panmedix's assets to its insiders (officers, directors, shareholders, and their affiliates) and other creditors. The court found the agreement to be constructively fraudulent due to disproportionately small consideration (four months' forbearance) and actual fraud, evidenced by numerous "badges of fraud," including the close relationship between parties, the unusual nature of the transfer, and the transferor's awareness of Priestley's claim and inability to pay. The agreement preferentially treated a controlling group of shareholders and insiders to the detriment of Priestley. Consequently, the Court granted Priestley's motion for summary judgment and denied the respondents' motion, deeming the Security Agreement a fraudulent conveyance.

Fraudulent ConveyanceSummary JudgmentSecurity AgreementDebtor and Creditor LawNew York LawInsider TransactionsPreferential TreatmentUCC Financing StatementJudgment CreditorPanmedix Inc.
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 534 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