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

Hamilton v. Hood

Patrick Hamilton, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1984 Orange County conviction for criminal sale and possession of a controlled substance. Magistrate Judge Sharon E. Grubin recommended denial of the petition, and District Judge Sprizzo adopted this recommendation, dismissing the petition. Hamilton's claims included defective temporary assignment of the Family Court judge who presided over his trial, an excessive sentence, and ineffective assistance of both trial and appellate counsel. The court found most claims procedurally barred due to Hamilton's failure to raise them in state courts or due to a lack of merit. Specifically, the court addressed and rejected the conflict of interest claims against counsel and affirmed the legality of the informant's evidence and the appropriate use of a de facto judge, stating that Hamilton's rights were not violated. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProcedural DefaultFourth AmendmentElectronic EavesdroppingDe Facto JudgeExcessive SentenceCriminal Sale of Controlled SubstanceCriminal Possession of Controlled SubstanceNew York Penal Law
References
20
Case No. 94 Civ. 4397
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 1998

Hamilton v. Garlock, Inc.

Plaintiff Linda Hamilton, widow of George Hamilton, filed an asbestos claim against several defendants, including Atlas Turner Inc., in the Southern District of New York in 1994. After a jury verdict in favor of the plaintiff, defendant Atlas filed post-trial motions, including a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. The court previously denied the jurisdictional motion with leave to renew. Upon a fuller record, the court now grants Atlas's motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding that Plaintiff failed to establish that New York law provides a basis for exercising jurisdiction over Atlas under CPLR § 301 ("doing business") or CPLR § 302 (long-arm statute). The court concluded that Hamilton's injury did not occur in New York, but in Virginia, where his asbestos exposure took place, thus failing the long-arm statute's requirements. Consequently, the other post-trial motions from Atlas were not considered.

Personal JurisdictionAsbestos ExposureMotion to DismissDiversity JurisdictionNew York CPLR 301New York CPLR 302Tortious ActDoing BusinessLong-Arm StatuteSitus of Injury
References
38
Case No. 131 AD3d 553
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2015

Assevero v. Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC

Hugo Assevero was injured falling from an unsecured ladder while working on a building renovation project owned by Hamilton & Church Properties, LLC. He commenced an action alleging violations of Labor Law sections, and Hamilton initiated a third-party action against Castle Construction Group. The Supreme Court initially granted Hamilton's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing the Labor Law claims based on the homeowner's exemption. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the building did not qualify for the homeowner's exemption due to its mixed commercial and multi-residential use. Consequently, Hamilton's cross-motion for summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) was denied. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial of Assevero's motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 240 (1) and Castle's cross-motion for summary judgment on indemnification claims.

Labor LawHomeowner's ExemptionSummary Judgment MotionLadder FallConstruction AccidentPersonal Injury ClaimCorporate Property OwnershipContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationThird-Party Litigation
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. Miller

In this consolidated appeal involving two personal injury actions, Giles v Yi and Hamilton v Miller, the New York Court of Appeals addressed the scope of medical report disclosure under 22 NYCRR 202.17(b)(1). Plaintiffs, alleging lead-based paint exposure during childhood caused numerous injuries, were ordered by Supreme Court, affirmed by the Appellate Division, to produce new medical reports detailing diagnoses and causal links to lead exposure prior to defense medical examinations. The Court of Appeals ruled this was an abuse of discretion, stating plaintiffs only need to produce existing reports from treating or examining providers, but these reports must contain the required diagnostic and prognostic information. The Court clarified that requiring new reports solely for litigation or mandating causation at this early discovery stage exceeded the rule's scope. It also denied a motion for judicial notice of federal lead-based paint findings as these are not 'law' under CPLR 4511. The orders were modified and affirmed, with remittal to Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Lead Poisoning LitigationDiscovery ProceduresMedical Report DisclosureCausation EvidencePreclusion OrdersBills of Particulars AmendmentJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewNew York Civil Practice Law and RulesCode of Rules and Regulations of New York
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. Guinan

Plaintiff, Hamilton, a union member and former vice-president of Local 100, was suspended and dismissed from office following a wildcat strike, and subsequently rendered ineligible to run for future office under the union's constitution. He sued to enjoin the enforcement of the union's decision, claiming a violation of his rights under 29 U.S.C.A. § 411(a)(5), which guarantees procedural safeguards against disciplinary action for union members. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing that the section applies only to discipline imposed on members as members, not on officers for dereliction of duty. The court agreed with the defendants, citing legislative history and prior case law that distinguish between discipline of a member's status as a member and their status as an officer. Consequently, the court found it lacked jurisdiction over the subject matter and dismissed the complaint.

Union LawLabor RelationsOfficer DisciplineMember RightsJurisdictionLabor-Management Reporting and Disclosure ActWildcat StrikeInternal Union RemediesEligibility for OfficeFederal Courts
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 21, 2007

Hamilton v. Mount Sinai Hospital

The plaintiffs (Josif Hamilton, Janina Frendak, and Raisa Tkach), former lab technicians at Mount Sinai Hospital, brought an action under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) alleging discriminatory termination. They were fired in 2004 for violating a hospital policy against swiping other employees' time cards or allowing others to swipe theirs. Plaintiffs contended this was a pretext for age discrimination, claiming younger workers replaced them and supervisors made retirement comments. Magistrate Judge Gorenstein recommended granting Mount Sinai's motion for summary judgment, finding no clear error in the employer's non-discriminatory reason for termination. The District Court, finding no clear error, adopted the Report and Recommendation, granting summary judgment to Mount Sinai Hospital and dismissing the complaint. The court concluded that while the policy might be irrational, there was insufficient evidence to prove age discrimination.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSummary JudgmentTime Card PolicyPretextFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureDiscrimination LawsuitEmployee MisconductDisparate TreatmentMount Sinai Hospital
References
63
Case No. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2012

Hamilton v. Colvin

Plaintiff William Hamilton applied for Social Security disability benefits, which were denied by the Commissioner. Hamilton sought judicial review of this decision in federal court. Magistrate Judge Bianchini issued a Report and Recommendation, suggesting the court reverse the Commissioner's decision and remand the case for further proceedings due to errors in evaluating severe impairments, credibility, and the use of Medical-Vocational Guidelines. Senior District Judge Scullin accepted the Magistrate Judge's recommendations, granting Plaintiff's motion for judgment on the pleadings, denying the Defendant's, and reversing the Commissioner's denial of benefits. The case was remanded for reconsideration of Plaintiff's carpal tunnel syndrome, other alleged severe impairments, and the credibility determination.

Disability benefitsSocial Security ActJudicial reviewAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationCarpal Tunnel SyndromeResidual Functional CapacityCredibility determinationVocational expertRemand
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hamilton v. City College of the City University of New York

Plaintiff Keith Hamilton, a student with dyslexia, sued City College of New York, Professor Phi-Sheng Ding, Professor J. Bar-shay, and Professor Alberto Guzman for alleged violations of the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and the Fourteenth Amendment, along with a state contract claim. Hamilton asserted that defendants failed to provide reasonable academic accommodations, specifically denying calculator use on a final exam despite his disability. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for the federal claims and lack of discriminatory animus. The court granted summary judgment to defendants on all federal claims, finding no evidence of discriminatory animus or ill will required to overcome Eleventh Amendment immunity, and dismissed the state contract claim without prejudice, declining supplemental jurisdiction.

Americans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActEleventh Amendment ImmunitySummary JudgmentAcademic AccommodationsDyslexiaHigher EducationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionState Contract Law
References
18
Case No. ADJ12182074
Regular
Jan 30, 2023

JUSTIN HAMILTON vs. SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT

The Appeals Board rescinded a WCJ's take-nothing order and returned the case to the trial level for further proceedings. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Evaluator (AME), Dr. Campbell, needs to supplement his opinion on industrial injury causation given the WCJ's credibility finding against the applicant. Additionally, the WCJ must consider the applicant's alleged criminal conviction for workers' compensation fraud, if proven, and provide the AME with any conviction details for review. The Board emphasized that it expresses no final opinion on the injury's existence or compensability.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationIndustrial InjuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorCriminal ConvictionWorkers' Compensation FraudMedical OpinionCredibilityDiscoveryRescinded
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2007

Hamilton v. Kushnir Realty Co.

In a personal injury action, the defendants, Israel Kushnir and Good Housing, Inc., appealed from an order of the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's order. The plaintiffs established a prima facie case that plaintiff Derek Hamilton was injured due to a lack of enumerated safety devices, which the defendants failed to controvert with a triable issue of fact. The court reiterated that the failure to provide any protective devices establishes an owner's or contractor's liability as a matter of law, regardless of custom or usage.

Personal InjuriesLabor Law § 240 (1)Summary JudgmentLiabilitySafety DevicesAppellate ReviewConstruction LawOwner's LiabilityContractor's LiabilityWorkplace Safety
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 46 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