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
Jul 07, 1988

In re Kaplan

Kenneth F. Kaplan, an attorney, was charged with professional misconduct, specifically the conversion of client funds. He received a $25,000 settlement check for his client, Josephine Burton, which he deposited into his fiancée's savings account and used for personal expenses, failing to maintain it in a proper escrow account for 5.5 years. Kaplan claimed he segregated cash in safe-deposit boxes, expecting to pay Burton in cash due to her being on welfare. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee's Hearing Panel rejected his defense, concluding he misappropriated his client's money and converted her funds. The court confirmed the Panel's findings and recommendations, ordering Kaplan's disbarment for the conversion of client funds.

Attorney misconductClient funds conversionEscrow account violationDisciplinary actionProfessional responsibilityCode of Professional ResponsibilityWorkers' Compensation LawSafe-deposit boxDisbarmentAttorney ethics
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06063 [142 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2016

Kaplan v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene

Constance Kaplan sued the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed several of Kaplan's causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court held that Kaplan had sufficiently stated causes of action for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge, and that the defendants' motion to dismiss should have been denied. The court clarified that the burden to show petty slight or trivial inconvenience rests with the defendants as an affirmative defense, and pre-answer dismissal motions only address the adequacy of pleading.

Sexual harassmentRetaliatory dischargeHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative CodeMotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3211 (a) (8)Appellate reviewPleading adequacy
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaplan v. Bayley Seton Hospital

Deborah Kaplan was injured after a fall at Bayley Seton Hospital where she was going to work for St. Vincent's Medical Center, which operated within the same building. Both hospitals, although under a common corporate parent (Sisters of Charity Health Care Corporation), maintained separate legal entities and finances. Bayley Seton Hospital, the defendant, moved for summary judgment arguing that the Workers' Compensation Law should shield it from liability. However, the Supreme Court, Richmond County, denied this motion and granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to strike the affirmative defense. This appellate decision affirmed the lower court's ruling, emphasizing that the separate legal identities of the hospitals meant Bayley Seton could not be shielded from tort liability.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation DefenseCorporate VeilIntercorporate LiabilitySeparate Legal EntitiesPremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewHospital LiabilityTort Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaplan v. Ruggieri

Plaintiff David Kaplan sued St. John's University and several individuals alleging six causes of action, including breach of a collective bargaining agreement, breach of duty of fair representation, wrongful denial of tenure, and defamation. The core of Kaplan's claims revolved around being denied tenure, changes to his teaching schedule, and the Union's handling of his grievances. The court reviewed defendants' motion for summary judgment, noting that the facts were undisputed. The court dismissed all of Kaplan's claims, finding that his first claim lacked a genuine controversy, the second lacked allegations of bad faith against the Union, and the third and fourth failed due to non-exhaustion of grievance procedures. The fifth claim was dismissed because tenure decisions were excluded from grievance procedures, and the defamation claim was dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted.

Tenure DenialSummary JudgmentLabor-Management Relations ActBreach of Duty of Fair RepresentationGrievance ProcedureCollective Bargaining AgreementAcademic EmploymentDefamationExhaustion of RemediesFederal Question Jurisdiction
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2004

Kaplan v. Kaplan

In a divorce action, the father appealed from a judgment of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which awarded the mother custody, permitted relocation, and set child support, maintenance, and attorney's fees. The Appellate Division modified the judgment by reducing child support to $2,836 per month, with an upward modification to $4,112 per month upon termination of maintenance. It also added a provision for joint consultation on the child's education and health, including special needs due to a hearing disability, with the mother having final decision-making authority. The court found the trial court properly awarded custody and permitted relocation, and upheld the maintenance and attorney's fee awards. The child support calculation was corrected to deduct maintenance and FICA from the father's income.

DivorceChild CustodyChild SupportMaintenanceRelocationAttorney's FeesSpecial Needs ChildParental GuidanceFinancial StatusBest Interests of the Child
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaplan v. Shapiro

Plaintiffs Neville and Ann Kaplan sued Hyman Shapiro, Ruth Shapiro, Norman Karp, and the Ruth Shapiro Trust, alleging fraudulent inducement to invest $150,000 in real estate projects. The complaint cited violations of federal securities laws, Rule 10b-5, New York General Business Law, and common law fraud. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the investment was not a 'security' under the Howey test. The court found no 'common enterprise' under either horizontal or restrictive vertical commonality, thus failing the Howey test. Consequently, federal claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of pendent jurisdiction.

Securities FraudInvestment ContractHowey TestCommon EnterpriseSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentFederal Securities LawNew York Statutory LawPendent JurisdictionReal Estate Investment
References
19
Case No. ADJ9648781
Regular
Oct 19, 2020

VERONICA HERNANDEZ vs. GRAIWER & KAPLAN, LLP, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration regarding a lien claimant's disallowed lien. The WCAB rescinded the prior order, finding that the initial dispute may not have been about the "amount of payment" but rather about whether an invoice was a duplicate. Consequently, the WCAB deferred the issue of the lien claimant's entitlement to further payment. The matter was returned to the trial level for further proceedings with admitted exhibits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationLien ClaimantFindings and OrderSecond Bill ReviewDuplicate InvoiceLabor Code section 4603.6(a)Explanation of Review (EOR)Admitted EvidenceDeferred Issue
References
6
Case No. 525879
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2018

Matter of Kaplan v. New York City Tr. Auth.

This is an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying death benefits. The claimant's husband, an employee of the New York City Transit Authority, collapsed at work and died from sudden cardiac arrest. Although a Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim based on the presumption of compensability, the Board reversed this decision, asserting the presumption was rebutted and no medical opinion supported a causal link to employment. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, finding that the Board improperly relied on medical records from a separate, prior claim that were not part of the current case record, thereby prejudicing the claimant. The matter was remitted to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings consistent with the Court's decision.

Workers' Compensation LawDeath BenefitsPresumption of CompensabilityCausal RelationshipMedical EvidenceAdministrative ProcedureRecord on AppealDue ProcessCardiac ArrestEmployment-Related Death
References
4
Case No. 09 Civ. 7283
Regular Panel Decision

D'OLIMPIO v. Crisafi

This Memorandum Order addresses motions to dismiss in consolidated actions: D’Olimpio v. Crisafi et al. (09 Civ. 7283) and Crisafi v. Kaplan (09 Civ. 9952). Plaintiff D’Olimpio alleged malicious prosecution and constitutional violations against law enforcement officers, while plaintiff Kaplan claimed retaliation for reporting misconduct. The court denied motions to dismiss D’Olimpio’s malicious prosecution and supervisory liability claims, finding sufficient allegations for malice and rejecting a narrow reading of supervisory liability under Iqbal. However, Kaplan's First Amendment retaliation claim was dismissed with prejudice, as his speech was deemed part of his official duties. Additionally, Crisafi’s defamation counterclaim against Kaplan was dismissed with prejudice, as Kaplan was not found legally responsible for the republication of statements in an Inspector General report.

Malicious ProsecutionFalse ArrestUnlawful DetentionConstitutional ViolationsSupervisory LiabilityQualified ImmunityProbable CauseDefamationFirst Amendment RightsRetaliation Claim
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Mauro v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Plaintiff Maria Mauro brought an action against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and several other defendants, including her investment advisor Peter J. Dawson and the Kaplan defendants (attorneys for Countrywide), alleging federal claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and various state law claims. Mauro claimed that the proceeds from two mortgage loans, secured by her investment rental properties, were misappropriated by Dawson. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that TILA was inapplicable because the loans were for business purposes and that the Kaplan defendants were not 'creditors' under the statute. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the TILA claim, concluding that the loans were indeed for business purposes, thus exempting them from TILA's coverage. The court also found that the Kaplan defendants did not qualify as 'creditors' under TILA. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Truth in Lending ActTILA ExemptionBusiness PurposeInvestment PropertySummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMortgage FraudCreditor Definition
References
57
Showing 1-10 of 32 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