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

Daniels v. Monroe County Child Support Collection Unit

This case concerns the priority of four liens against a $7,500 settlement received by Mr. Daniels. The liens include his attorney's charging lien, a workers' compensation lien by Legion Insurance, a child support lien by the Child Support Collection Unit for over $20,000, and a judgment lien by former landlord Robert Dykes. The court, presided over by Justice Andrew V. Siracuse, determined that the attorney's charging lien takes first priority based on logic and public policy, as the attorney created the fund benefiting all lienors. Legion Insurance's workers' compensation lien received second priority, as the Child Support Collection Unit had already had an opportunity to levy on the initial workers' compensation payments. The Child Support Collection Unit was placed third, and Robert Dykes's judgment lien was last. The court rejected arguments that CPLR 5242 (d) gave child support priority over statutory and charging liens in this specific context.

Lien PriorityAttorney's Charging LienWorkers' Compensation LienChild Support LienJudgment LienCPLR 5242 (d)Workers’ Compensation Law § 29Domestic Relations Law § 240Public PolicyEquitable Principles
References
2
Case No. 14-CV-1044
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Greene v. Paramount Pictures Corp.

Plaintiff Andrew Greene sued Paramount Pictures, Red Granite Pictures, and Appian Way for defamation, alleging he was portrayed inaccurately in 'The Wolf of Wall Street' movie through the character Nicky Koskoff. Greene claimed the character, nicknamed 'Rugrat' (mocking his toupee, similar to Greene's 'Wigwam'), defamed him by depicting him engaged in criminal activity, drug use, and unprofessional behavior. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the character was a composite, not 'of and concerning' Greene, and that they did not act with actual malice. The Court found that even if Koskoff was a depiction of Greene, the plaintiff failed to show clear and convincing evidence that defendants acted with actual malice, as they did not knowingly or recklessly disregard whether the character would be perceived as Greene. Therefore, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Greene's libel claim with prejudice.

DefamationLibelSummary JudgmentActual MalicePublic FigureFictional CharacterComposite CharacterFirst AmendmentMovie ProductionThe Wolf of Wall Street
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Green

On January 11, 1990, Sun Ok Kim was assaulted, robbed, and subjected to an attempted burglary. Two weeks later, she identified Kenneth Green in a police lineup. Green subsequently filed a motion to suppress the identification testimony, citing both suggestive lineup procedures and the scientific unreliability of eyewitness identification. The court considered expert testimony regarding the factors affecting eyewitness accuracy, including witness confidence and stress levels, but found no evidence of suggestiveness in the police's conduct. Ultimately, the court denied Green's motion in its entirety, ruling that the scientific arguments related to the weight of the identification evidence, not its admissibility, which remains a question for the jury.

Eyewitness IdentificationSuppression MotionDue ProcessSuggestive LineupScientific ReliabilityYerkes-Dodson LawCriminal ProcedureAdmissibility of EvidenceWeight of EvidenceHuman Perception
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 1999

Acosta v. S.L. Green Management Corp.

The plaintiff was injured on property leased by their employer, Ann Sacks Tile & Stone, Inc., and owned by S.L. Green Management Corp. The plaintiff sued Green for negligence. Green then filed a third-party claim against Sacks for contribution and indemnity. The Supreme Court initially granted Sacks' motion for summary judgment, citing the Workers' Compensation Law. However, this decision was reversed on appeal. The appellate court found that while Workers' Compensation Law § 11 generally bars such third-party actions against employers, an exception exists if there's a pre-existing indemnification contract. The lease between Sacks and Green contained such a clause, and there was an issue of fact as to whether Sacks breached the lease by failing to repair a non-structural defect. Therefore, Sacks could not conclusively prove the action was barred.

IndemnificationContributionWorkers' Compensation LawSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewThird-Party ActionLease AgreementBreach of ContractGrave InjuryNegligence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Green Hills (USA), L.L.C. v. Aaron Streit, Inc.

Green Hills, LLC brought an action against Aaron Streit, Inc. and Certified Environments, Inc. for violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) and New York Navigation Law, along with other common law provisions. The dispute arose after Green Hills purchased a property from Streit's, which was previously inspected by CEI, and subsequently discovered leaked heating oil from underground storage tanks. Green Hills alleges that Streit's misrepresented the property's environmental condition and CEI failed to detect the hazards. Defendants moved to dismiss various counts of the complaint, with Streit's arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim under RCRA, and CEI arguing the economic loss rule bars certain state-law claims. The court denied both defendants' motions to dismiss, finding sufficient allegations for an RCRA claim and exercising supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims against CEI. The court also granted Green Hills' cross-motion to amend its complaint.

RCRAEnvironmental LawHazardous WasteUnderground Storage TanksContaminationNew York Navigation LawMotions to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionFailure to State a ClaimSupplemental Jurisdiction
References
29
Case No. ADJ976241 (VNO 0301388)
Regular
Feb 14, 2013

JACQUELINE GREEN vs. GENERAL MOTORS, ARROWOOD INDEMNITY INSURANCE CO.

Applicant Jacqueline Green and lienholder Theodore Green filed a document over a year late, seeking to overturn an approved Compromise and Release (C&R). The C&R clearly stipulated the dismissal of Theodore Green's liens with prejudice, a term signed by both Jacqueline and Theodore. As the petition for reconsideration was untimely filed, exceeding the 20-day limit, the Board lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the Board dismissed their motion.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and ReleaseLien ClaimantDismissal with PrejudiceUntimely PetitionLabor Code section 5903Non-medical BenefitsPermanent Disability
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. ADJ6981750
Regular
Jan 13, 2017

GUMERSINDO DELEON vs. ESPARZA ENTERPRISES, INC.

This case concerns a lien claimant's failure to pay a $100.00 lien activation fee required by Labor Code section 4903.06 by the date of a lien conference. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) is considering rescinding the order dismissing the lien, but only if the fee is paid within ten days of this notice. The WCAB's intention is based on a court order allowing lien activation fees to be paid between November 9, 2015, and December 31, 2015, and the lien claimant's assertion of computer problems. If payment is received, the lien claim will be returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Lien activation feeLabor Code Section 4903.06ReconsiderationOrder Dismissing Lien ClaimWCJDWCAngelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionNinth CircuitVacating injunction
References
7
Case No. 153 AD3d 1621
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2017

Matter of Brooks v. Greene

This case involves an appeal by Halbert Brooks, Jr. (father) from a Family Court order that awarded sole custody of the parties' child to Paula Greene (mother) and mandated supervised overnight visitation for the father. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, dismissed the appeal concerning supervised visitation as moot because subsequent orders allowed unsupervised visitation. However, the appeal was not moot regarding the custody issues. The Court affirmed the Family Court's denial of the father's recusal motion against the Judge and his motion to remove the Attorney for the Child, finding no substantiated allegations of bias in either instance.

Family LawChild CustodyVisitation RightsRecusal MotionAttorney for the ChildMootness DoctrineJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewBias AllegationsFamily Court Act Article 6
References
10
Case No. ADJ1035201
Regular
Oct 04, 2016

VICTOR DURAN vs. DONUT INN, STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANY

The Appeals Board is considering rescinding an order that dismissed Metro Med Shockwave's lien claim for failure to pay a $\$100$ lien activation fee. The WCJ dismissed the lien because the fee was not paid before the lien conference, citing prior precedent. However, the lien claimant argues they had until December 31, 2015, to pay the fee based on a DWC Newsline article referencing a court order. The Board intends to rescind the dismissal if the fee is paid within ten days, allowing further proceedings on the lien claim.

Labor Code section 4903.06Lien activation feeWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardMetro Med ShockwaveFigueroa v. B.C Doering Co.Angelotti Chiropractic v. BakerPreliminary injunctionDWC NewslineReconsiderationRescind order
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,449 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