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. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Dzinovic

Claimant, employed by a nonprofit assisting refugees, was laid off due to reduced refugee entries after the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks. After exhausting basic unemployment benefits, he applied for extended benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A), designed for displaced airline-related workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim, and this decision was affirmed on appeal. The court found that to qualify for TEUC-A benefits, the separation from employment must be directly linked to specific airline-related causes or the military conflict in Iraq, none of which applied to the claimant's situation.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsTEUC-AAirline-Related WorkersDisplaced WorkersSeptember 11 AttacksFederal Immigration PoliciesLayoff EligibilityQualifying EmploymentAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Kohut

Claimant, a former employee of IBM and then EIT, was laid off from EIT in November 2002. She sought extended unemployment benefits under a temporary program for displaced airline-related workers (Pub L 108-11), claiming her work supplied various airlines. Her application was denied as her layoff was attributed to IBM's sale of her division and EIT's subsequent reorganization, not the qualifying events outlined in the statute (reduction in airline service due to 9/11, airport closure, or Iraq conflict). The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this denial. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, concluding that the claimant failed to prove her layoff was due to any of the statutory qualifying conditions, thereby affirming the denial of benefits.

unemployment insuranceextended benefitstemporary extended unemployment compensation programairline industrydisplaced workerseligibilitylayoffbusiness salereorganizationstatutory interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Miceli

The claimant, a former software engineer for IBM, sought extended unemployment insurance benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) after her initial benefits were exhausted. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision and denied her application, ruling she was ineligible. Eligibility for TEUC-A benefits requires that airline-related employment ended due to specific events like reductions in service caused by the September 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, airport closures, or the military conflict with Iraq. The court found no basis to disturb the Board’s decision, as the claimant failed to demonstrate that her layoff due to 'lack of work' was directly attributable to any of the qualifying airline-related events specified in TEUC-A. The court also noted that certain documents offered by the claimant to support her assertion were outside the administrative record. Accordingly, the decision of the Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended Unemployment CompensationTEUC-AAirline-related WorkersSoftware EngineerLayoffSeptember 11 AttacksIraq WarEligibility CriteriaAdministrative Law Judge
References
1
Case No. 09 Civ. 4390 (PKC)
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Aiello v. Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc.

Plaintiff Richard Aiello, a civilian contractor, sued Kellogg, Brown & Root Services, Inc. for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in a latrine at Camp Shield, a forward operating base in Iraq. Aiello alleged negligent construction, renovation, repair, and/or maintenance of the facility. Defendant Kellogg moved for summary judgment, asserting defenses including the political question doctrine and federal preemption under the combatant activities exception of the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA). The District Court found the political question doctrine inapplicable but granted summary judgment for Kellogg, holding that tort claims against government contractors integrated into military combatant activities in a war zone are preempted. The court reasoned that the maintenance of essential life-support facilities at an active forward operating base constituted combatant activity, and imposing state tort liability would significantly conflict with unique federal interests.

Military Contractor LiabilityFederal PreemptionCombatant Activities ExceptionFederal Tort Claims Act (FTCA)Political Question DoctrineSummary JudgmentNegligenceIraq War OperationsCamp ShieldLogistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP)
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1997

Byer v. Town of Poestenkill

This case is an appeal concerning the validity of Local Law No. 2 of the Town of Poestenkill, which allowed rezoning for gravel mining. The initial Supreme Court judgment annulled the law due to a purported conflict of interest by a Town Board member and an inadequate environmental review under SEQRA. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding no conflict of interest as the financial benefit was speculative and the Ethics Board's finding of no conflict was rational. Furthermore, the court found the Town Board's SEQRA review sufficient, as it had thoroughly assessed environmental impacts. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court to address an unreviewed issue regarding protest petitions.

Environmental LawZoningLocal LawsConflict of InterestSEQRAJudicial ReviewTown BoardGravel MiningPublic OfficialsAppellate Review
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perez v. Arya National Shipping Line, Ltd.

Luis Perez, a longshoreman injured in 1973, commenced an action against a shipowner in 1975, fifteen months after receiving compensation under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act (LHWCA). The shipowner moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing that Perez's right to sue was assigned to his employer because he failed to initiate the action within the six-month statutory period outlined in LHWCA section 33(b). Perez invoked the "conflict of interest" exception established in Czaplicki v. The Hoegh Silvercloud. The court examined who bears the burden of proof for this exception, ultimately siding with the defendant's position that the employee must demonstrate such a conflict. The defendant's motion to dismiss was denied, but Perez was given forty-five days to present competent evidence of a conflict of interest.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActConflict of InterestAssignment of ClaimsMotion to DismissBurden of ProofStatutory InterpretationThird-Party LiabilityEmployer IndemnificationWorkers' Compensation BoardMaritime Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Isaacson

This is a criminal prosecution where defendant Julius Isaacson, a union official, was charged with embezzling and conspiring to embezzle money from a labor union and employee benefit funds through an alleged kickback scheme. The Government moved to disqualify Isaacson’s counsel due to a potential conflict of interest, as the attorney and his firm previously represented some of the alleged victim entities. Despite Isaacson’s waiver of his right to conflict-free counsel, the Government argued that the conflict was intolerable. The court denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that the factual allegations focused on external conduct, there was insufficient information at the early pretrial stage, and counsel had largely withdrawn from representing the victim entities. The court conditioned continued representation on counsel fully withdrawing from the remaining entity and attesting to no outstanding fees.

Criminal ProsecutionConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationEmbezzlementUnion FundsEmployee Benefit PlansERISAKickback SchemeObstruction of JusticeSixth Amendment
References
7
Case No. 342 S.W.3d 809
Regular Panel Decision

Jimmy Glen Riemer v. the State of Texas and Jerry Patterson, as Commissioner of the General Land Office of the State of Texas

This case concerns the denial of class action certification for landowners suing the State of Texas over alleged takings claims related to the Canadian River boundaries in Hutchinson County. The trial court denied certification, and the court of appeals affirmed, citing conflicts of interest among proposed class members, particularly regarding a settlement agreement (MBA) and land ownership on opposite sides of the river. The Supreme Court of Texas reversed the court of appeals' judgment, finding that the identified conflicts were either not fundamental or too speculative to prevent adequate representation for class certification under Rule 42(a)(4). The Court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion in denying certification based on these conflicts, and the case is remanded to the court of appeals to address other contested requirements for class certification.

Class ActionClass CertificationRule 42Adequacy of RepresentationConflicts of InterestLandownersTakings ClaimsCanadian RiverBoundariesSovereign Immunity
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McLaughlin

The People moved to disqualify the Legal Aid Society from representing the defendant, Mr. McLaughlin, on the grounds that the Society had previously represented a key prosecution witness, Mr. Luis Elicier. The defense argued against the motion, citing timeliness and claiming no actual conflict of interest. The court, presided over by Justice Carol Berkman, found an actual conflict due to the Society's prior representation of Elicier and their stated intent to implicate him in the current crimes. Despite the defendant's desire to retain his chosen counsel and the Society's proposed 'Chinese Wall' defense, the court ruled that the conflict of interest was undeniable and ordered the disqualification of the Legal Aid Society. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and protecting the former client's confidences, overriding the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in this instance.

Attorney disqualificationConflict of interest (legal)Sixth Amendment right to counselAttorney-client privilegeEthical violationsCriminal defenseProsecution witnessFormer client representationJudicial ethicsNew York courts
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 1,529 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