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

Craig v. New York Telephone Co.

This appeal stems from a wrongful death action where the plaintiff's decedent died of a heart attack after working at a fire scene. The plaintiff sought discovery from the defendant, Telephone Company, regarding the fire and workplace conditions. The defendant appealed Justice Wright's order to comply with discovery demands. The appellate court modified the order, striking plaintiff's demand number two as overly broad and burdensome, while affirming demands three and four as sufficiently specific, thus partially affirming and partially modifying the original order.

DiscoveryInspectionWrongful DeathWorkplace SafetyFire IncidentAppellate ReviewProtective OrderBurdensome DemandsSpecificity in DiscoveryCivil Procedure
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldman v. Shenfeld

The court issued an order that modified a previous decision. Specifically, it denied a motion for discovery and inspection in its entirety. Furthermore, the order restricted the duration covered by an examination, stipulating that it should begin no earlier than July 1, 1928. The modified order was subsequently affirmed, and no costs were awarded to either party. The decision did not include a formal opinion, and the precise date for the examination was left to be determined in a future order. This panel consisted of Dowling, P. J., Merrell, Finch, McAvoy, and Proskauer, JJ.

References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

1-21 v. County of Suffolk

This case arises from allegations that the County of Suffolk and Suffolk County Police Department subjected Latino individuals to discriminatory policing, including illegal traffic stops, unjustified checkpoints, and 'stop and rob' schemes. The plaintiffs, referred to as 'Plaintiffs #1-21,' filed a motion to proceed anonymously, citing fears of retaliation and deportation. The court granted this motion, acknowledging the serious nature of the allegations, particularly against Defendant Scott Greene, who is also facing criminal charges related to the 'stop and rob' scheme. Additionally, the court ordered a stay of discovery solely with respect to Defendant Greene, balancing his Fifth Amendment rights against the plaintiffs' interest in an expeditious resolution. Discovery is permitted to proceed against other defendants, and a protective order for limited disclosure of plaintiffs' identities will be submitted.

Discriminatory policingRacial profilingFourth Amendment rights violationFifth Amendment rights violationFourteenth Amendment rights violation42 U.S.C. § 1983 claims42 U.S.C. § 2000d claimsAnonymous plaintiffsStay of proceedingsSelf-incrimination
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 1997

LaVigna v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for discovery and to amend the complaint. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order. The claims against Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. were dismissed due to the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity rule, as plaintiff Robert LaVigna was an employee. Plaintiffs failed to show deliberate conduct to bypass this rule or wanton behavior for punitive damages. Additionally, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. had knowledge of a defective condition causing fume seepage. The denial of additional discovery was upheld due to lack of diligence, and the motion to add J.T. Falk as a defendant was denied due to the Statute of Limitations and plaintiffs' investigative delinquency.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentDiscoveryComplaint AmendmentStatute of LimitationsUnited in Interest DoctrinePunitive DamagesPremises LiabilityFume ExposureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. Putnam Valley Board of Education

This case concerns a discovery dispute in a discrimination complaint filed against the Putnam Valley Board of Education by several plaintiffs, including T.H., alleging violations of the Fourteenth Amendment and civil rights statutes. The core issue was whether the identity of a mandated reporter, who made a Child Protective Services (CPS) report about T.H., should be disclosed to the plaintiffs. The defendant appealed a Magistrate Judge's order compelling disclosure, asserting that New York Social Services Law mandates the confidentiality of such reporters. The District Court, balancing the state's strong interest in protecting mandated reporters to encourage child abuse reporting against the plaintiffs' need for discovery, reversed the prior order. Consequently, the court granted a protective order, prohibiting the disclosure of the reporter's identity, citing the potential chilling effect on future reporting and the plaintiffs' minimal likelihood of overcoming the reporter's immunity under state law.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderChild Protective ServicesMandated Reporter ConfidentialityNew York Social Services LawFederal Civil RightsDiscrimination AllegationChild Abuse ReportImmunityGood Faith
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Javier H. v. Garcia-Botello

This case concerns a motion by the United States to intervene in a civil action brought by farm-worker plaintiffs against grower and contractor defendants. The purpose of the intervention was to stay discovery in the civil case until a related criminal trial, United States v. Maria Garcia et al., concludes. The civil and criminal cases share nearly identical facts, charges, and some defendants, raising concerns about criminal defendants using civil discovery to circumvent criminal discovery limitations and potential Fifth Amendment violations. The Court denies the United States' motion to intervene, finding the government has no direct interest in the civil litigation. However, the Court, exercising its inherent power, orders a stay of all discovery in the civil matter until the close of evidence in the related criminal case, citing interests of justice, judicial efficiency, and public interest in law enforcement.

Discovery StayIntervention MotionParallel ProceedingsCriminal-Civil OverlapFifth Amendment PrivilegeJudicial EfficiencyFarm Workers RightsMigrant Workers ProtectionFair Labor Standards ActAgricultural Workers Protection Act
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers Local No. 181 v. Casatelli Electric, Inc.

The plaintiffs, comprising a union, various benefit funds, and a training committee, initiated a lawsuit against Casatelli Electric, Inc., its alleged alter egos William and Alberta Brittelli, D.C. Electric, and Reliance Insurance Company of New York, seeking to recover fringe benefit contributions, union dues, and vacation monies. The case primarily involved disputes over extensive discovery requests, including interrogatories and document production. A Magistrate Judge found the plaintiffs' discovery requests to be excessive and imposed limitations on the scope of initial discovery, reserving the possibility for further discovery at a later stage. The plaintiffs filed objections to these orders, which were reviewed by District Judge Pooler. The District Judge largely affirmed the Magistrate Judge's decisions, finding them not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, but did grant a minor modification regarding the production of educational and employment information for the Brittelli defendants and their son. Additionally, the defendants' request for attorney's fees was denied.

Discovery DisputeCorporate Veil PiercingAlter EgoSuccessor LiabilityFringe Benefit ContributionsUnion DuesVacation MoniesInterrogatoriesDocument ProductionMagistrate Judge Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kramer v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This case involves an appeal stemming from an order issued by the Supreme Court, Erie County, presided over by Justice Kevin M. Dillon. The original order denied the plaintiff's motion for discovery within the context of a wrongful death action. Upon review by the appellate panel, consisting of Hurlbutt, J.P., Scudder, Kehoe, Pine, and Hayes, JJ., the order was unanimously affirmed without costs. The appellate court upheld the lower court's decision for the reasons previously stated in the Supreme Court's original determination.

Discovery MotionWrongful Death ActionAppellate CourtOrder AffirmedCivil ProcedureErie County Supreme CourtJudicial Review
References
0
Case No. SAU8840977
Regular
Nov 03, 2025

ERIC BRAGER vs. RKL TECHNOLOGIES, CENTER FOR BETTER HEALTH dba SOUTHLAND SPINE AND REHABILITATION

Liaison counsel for insurance carriers sought reconsideration or removal of a Discovery Order issued by a workers' compensation administrative law judge (WCJ) on August 1, 2025, which voided prior orders and mandated refiling of documents. The carriers argued lack of jurisdiction, insufficient evidence, and violation of due process, while a lien claimant opposed, asserting the judge was disqualified. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, finding the Discovery Order was not a final order, but granted removal, concluding the order violated due process due to lack of notice and a fair hearing. Consequently, the Appeals Board rescinded the Discovery Order and returned the matter for further proceedings to properly adjudicate the allegations against the prior WCJ's orders.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalDiscovery OrderVoiding Prior OrdersDisqualification of JudgeDue ProcessFair HearingLabor Code Section 5909Labor Code Section 5313
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 24,229 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