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

Haygood v. Hardwick

Andrew Hardwick appealed a Supreme Court order that denied his motion to dismiss a petition to invalidate his independent nominating petition and subsequently granted the petition, invalidating his nomination. The petitioners had alleged widespread fraud and forgery in the signatures collected for Hardwick's independent nominating petition. Hardwick contended that these allegations lacked sufficient specificity, a claim the court rejected, finding that the petition to invalidate adequately incorporated specific objections filed with the Nassau County Board of Elections. The Supreme Court's decision to invalidate was affirmed on appeal, as the court found Hardwick to be chargeable with knowledge of the fraudulent methods employed to gather signatures. Evidence showed subscribing witnesses were paid for collecting signatures before being registered to vote, and dates on petitions were altered, further substantiating the fraud. Additionally, the non-appearance of key subscribing witnesses led to an adverse inference against Hardwick.

Election LawIndependent Nominating PetitionPetition InvalidationFraudulent SignaturesForgeryVoter RegistrationCampaign FinanceAppellate DecisionNassau County ElectionCounty Executive
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schlesinger v. Levine

The plaintiff sought to invalidate a lease and recover rent and security, alleging mutual mistake or defendant's fraud concerning zoning regulations. The plaintiff intended to use the premises for "iron work," but the property, formerly business-zoned, had become residential, though a prior nonconforming use existed. The lease stipulated the tenant's responsibility for obtaining a certificate of occupancy and complying with laws, explicitly stating no landlord representation regarding ironwork use. The court found the plaintiff was fully informed about the zoning issues, including legal representation during lease signing. Consequently, the claims of mistake and fraud were deemed untenable, leading to a judgment for the defendant, dismissal of the complaint, and an award of $375 to the landlord for three months' rent.

Zoning RegulationsNonconforming UseLease ValidityContract FraudMutual MistakeTenant ResponsibilityCertificate of OccupancyRent ArrearsProperty LawJudicial Dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 1977

Carroll v. McNab

This case involves an appeal from a judgment that dismissed a counterclaim and granted an application to invalidate designating petitions for several public offices. The validity of the petitions hinged on 317 signatures deemed invalid by the board of elections because subscribing witnesses had previously signed valid party designating petitions for the same offices and election. The court found that subdivisions 3 and 10 of section 138 of the Election Law require the disqualification of such witnesses and the invalidation of the associated signatures. The appellants' contention that this disqualification is unconstitutional was rejected by the court. Consequently, the judgment was affirmed, upholding the invalidation of the petitions.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsCandidate DisqualificationSubscribing WitnessesConstitutional LawPetition ValidityAppellate ReviewIndependence PartyGeneral Election
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laborers International Union of North America v. Clark Material Handling, Inc.

Special Term erred in concluding an arbitration provision in a collective bargaining agreement was invalid because it gave the union the unilateral right to arbitrate at its option. This decision contrasts with Federal labor law principles where a union's exclusive right to invoke arbitration does not invalidate the agreement. The court also clarified that the union reserving the right to strike alongside arbitration does not render the agreement invalid. However, a factual question arose concerning the validity of the collective bargaining agreement itself, specifically whether the employees who signed it on the employer's behalf had the authority to bind the company. Therefore, the matter was remitted for a hearing to determine the agreement's validity.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration ProvisionMutuality of ObligationFederal Labor LawUnion RightsEmployer AuthorityContract ValidityRemittiturAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Korman v. Sachs

This case concerns an appeal challenging the invalidation of Lorraine Backal's designating petition for Judge of the Surrogate’s Court, Bronx County. The Supreme Court initially ruled her petition invalid, citing fewer than the required 5,000 signatures under Election Law § 6-136 (2) (b). On appeal, while the court upheld the factual finding of insufficient signatures, it deemed the 5,000-signature requirement for Bronx County unconstitutional. The court found this disparity, compared to 2,000 signatures for counties of similar population outside New York City, violated the Equal Protection Clause. Consequently, the judgment invalidating Backal's petition was reversed, and the Board of Elections was directed to place her name on the ballot.

Election LawDesignating PetitionsConstitutional LawEqual ProtectionBallot AccessSignature RequirementsJudicial ElectionsNew York StateAppellate ReviewSurrogate's Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mercorella v. Benza

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, judgment from August 26, 1975, which invalidated candidate Louis C. Benza's designating petition, was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court found insufficient evidence of fraud to justify the total invalidation of the petition, particularly regarding signatures obtained in public places. Despite 4,220 of Benza's 10,831 signatures being initially stricken by the board of elections, leaving 6,609 valid signatures, only 5,000 were required. The court clarified that random solicitation in public places or minor irregularities due to inexperience are not grounds for total invalidation, and noted that Election Law Section 135 no longer mandates personal knowledge between signatory and witness. Consequently, Benza's petition to validate was granted, and the restraint against the board of elections was vacated.

designating petitionelection lawsignature validationfraud allegationsappellate reviewBronx Countyvoter signaturespetition irregularitiesvoter enrollmentsubscribing witness
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 07, 1999

Baby U. v. Teresea U.

This case involves an appeal concerning the adoption of 'Baby U.' Petitioners sought to adopt, but respondents (the birth parents, Teresea U. and Paul E.) subsequently revoked their extrajudicial consents. Respondents alleged the consents were invalid due to lack of adequate representation and a misunderstanding of their revocability. The Family Court initially found the consents invalid and ordered petitioners to pay respondents' legal expenses. On appeal, the higher court reversed the findings regarding the invalidity of the consents, determining there was competent representation and no fraud, coercion, or duress. It also reversed the orders requiring petitioners to bear respondents' litigation costs. While affirming certain discovery and visitation orders, the matter was ultimately remanded for a best interests hearing for Baby U. before a different Family Court Judge, with an emphasis on the child's right to a Law Guardian.

Adoption LawParental ConsentChild WelfareAppellate ProcedureAttorney's FeesBest Interests of ChildFamily CourtLegal EthicsRevocation of ConsentInterstate Adoption
References
3
Case No. ADJ10061866
Regular
Jun 20, 2016

MARK CRONIN vs. CITY OF LOS ANGELES

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision finding a late Independent Medical Review (IMR) determination valid. The Board ruled that timeframes for IMR issuance are directory, not mandatory, and a late IMR does not invalidate the determination. Therefore, the applicant cannot object to the IMR's timeliness after it has been issued. The Board followed precedent holding that untimeliness of an IMR does not invalidate it, thus an objection on that basis is waived.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndependent Medical ReviewIMRuntimely IMRreconsiderationmedical treatment disputeLabor Code section 4610.6(d)directory timeframesmandatory timeframesutilization review
References
37
Case No. ADJ3863941 (STK 0209392)
Regular
Apr 02, 2012

BONNIE HAUCK, *(BONNIE NEWMAN-SMITH HAUCK)* vs. COUNTY OF SAN JOAQUIN, TRI STAR RISK MANAGEMENT

The defendant sought reconsideration of a Findings and Award that increased the applicant's permanent disability rating. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition as untimely because the defendant failed to file a timely petition for reconsideration of the original award. The WCJ's subsequent amendment, which substantively altered the award, was deemed invalid as it was made after the reconsideration period expired and without proper procedure. Therefore, the defendant's petition for reconsideration of the invalid amended award was also dismissed.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCounty of San JoaquinTRI STAR RISK MANAGEMENTBonnie HauckPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAgreed Medical ExaminerApportionmentPermanent DisabilityCumulative Trauma
References
4
Case No. ADJ9539560
Regular
May 14, 2015

OSCAR MELENDEZ vs. B&D UPHOLSTERY, PROCENTURY INSURANCE COMPANY, MIDWEST INSURANCE COMPANY

In this workers' compensation case, the defendant sought to invalidate the applicant's requested QME panel. The defendant argued that the applicant's request was invalid because it was not served on their attorney. The Appeals Board denied the petition for removal, finding that while service on the attorney was required, the defendant's own QME request contained material defects, including misidentifying the treating physician's specialty and the reason for the request. Therefore, the WCJ's finding of the applicant's panel's validity did not cause irreparable harm.

Petition for RemovalQualified Medical EvaluatorQME PanelLabor Code section 4060Compensability examWCAB Rule 10510(b)Service on attorneyRule 31.1(b)Specialty disputeMaterial defects
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 447 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