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

Liggett v. Comprodaily Publishing Co.

The court reviewed an order concerning the defendants’ motion to strike out items from a notice to produce under Section 327 of the Civil Practice Act. The initial order, which denied the motion, was modified. The modification involved striking out the denial for items 1 and 2, thereby granting the motion for those items, while the denial for item 3 remained. Consequently, the modified order was affirmed. The defendants were explicitly instructed to exert a more thorough effort to comply with item 3, which pertains to the production of original manuscripts, clippings, and other materials forming the basis of alleged libelous publications, and to provide a sworn certification if full compliance is not possible.

Motion to StrikeNotice to ProduceCivil Practice ActDiscoveryDocument ProductionLibelAppellate ReviewOrder ModificationCourt ProcedureAffirmed as Modified
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gallagher v. Moreschi

This legal order, which was appealed from, has been unanimously modified. The modification specifically grants an examination concerning multiple enumerated items, ranging from item 3 to item 26. Following this modification, the order was affirmed, and costs along with disbursements were awarded to the appellants. The decision explicitly states that no opinion was provided, and the exact date for the examination is to be determined in a subsequent order.

Examination GrantedOrder ModifiedAffirmed DecisionAppellate CostsDisbursements AwardedPanel DecisionNo Judicial OpinionProcedural OrderItems of ExaminationAppellants' Favor
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomann v. Flynn

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others, sought a permanent mandatory injunction and damages for reinstatement to a trades union due to improper exclusion. The court modified an order framing issues of fact for a jury trial by striking items 2, 3, 4, and 5. It also added two new items addressing allegations in paragraphs fourteenth and fifteenth of the complaint. The order, as modified, was affirmed without costs. This decision referenced a similar ruling in Meinhardt v. Flynn.

References
1
Case No. ADJ2567272 (AHM 0105012)
Regular
Oct 15, 2012

, Applicant, FELIX NINO MOTA vs. ALLGREEN LANDSCAPE; NATIONAL INSURANCE COMPANY, Administered by FARA Adjusting Services

Applicant's attorneys requested $51,900 in attorney's fees under Labor Code Section 5801 for work related to a writ of review. The Appeals Board found the declarations supporting the request inadequate due to lack of itemization and justification for the hours and rates. Consequently, the Board may award a fee of up to $16,000, but reserves the right to award substantially less or nothing at all due to the potentially inflated nature of the initial request. Applicant's attorneys must provide detailed itemizations and show good cause to receive any fee.

Labor Code section 5801attorney's feespetition for writ of reviewAppeals Boarddeclarationsitemized billingshourly ratecertified workers' compensation specialistclerical tasksunreasonably inflated
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meinhardt v. Flynn

The plaintiff, on behalf of himself and others similarly situated, initiated an action seeking a permanent mandatory injunction and damages to be reinstated to membership in a trades union, alleging improper exclusion or expulsion. The case involved an order framing issues of fact for a jury trial, which was subsequently modified by the court. Specific items were struck from the original order, and two new items were inserted to cover factual issues arising from denials in the complaint. The modified order was affirmed without costs, granting the plaintiff an opportunity to frame additional questions. The Special Term’s discretion in granting the order under section 430 of the Civil Practice Act was upheld by the court.

Mandatory InjunctionDamagesTrades Union MembershipImproper ExclusionExpulsionJury Trial IssuesOrder ModificationCivil Practice ActAppellate ReviewProcedural Law
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 1990

Sternklar v. 19 E. 80th St. Associates

Tenants Theodore Sternklar and Adrienne Wincor-Sternklar leased a rent-stabilized apartment from landlord 19 E. 80th St. Associates. They undertook various alterations with the landlord's permission. When the landlord required window replacement, tenants faced significant costs to remove and reinstall their custom items. Tenants sought a declaratory judgment to define the parties' rights and obligations. The lower court granted summary judgment to the landlord, dismissing the complaint and granting counterclaims for unauthorized renovations. The appellate court reversed, finding numerous material issues of fact regarding the landlord's approval of alterations, the nature of certain installations, and the status of items claimed as unauthorized, thus precluding summary judgment.

Rent stabilizationApartment alterationsSummary judgmentFactual disputesLease agreementDeclaratory judgmentLandlord-tenant disputeAppellate reviewNew York lawProperty dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Tremaine

This case addresses a constitutional dispute between the People of the State of New York and the Comptroller of the State, with the Governor and State Legislature as the real parties in interest. The core issue revolves around the interpretation of Article VII, Section 4 of the New York State Constitution, which defines the Legislature's powers concerning the Governor's annual appropriation bill. The Legislature had significantly altered the Governor's budget by replacing itemized appropriations with 'lump sum appropriations.' The court ruled that while the Legislature can strike out, reduce, or add *new* items for purposes not originally included, it is forbidden from fundamentally restructuring and rewriting the Governor's executive budget bill, as this action nullifies the constitutional framework designed to ensure an executive budget.

Executive BudgetLegislative PowerAppropriation BillConstitutional InterpretationSeparation of PowersState FinancesLump Sum AppropriationsBudgetary ControlNew York State ConstitutionArticle VII Section 4
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 12, 2002

People v. Abarrategui

The defendant appealed his convictions for second and third-degree burglary, grand larceny, and criminal possession of stolen property following a jury trial. The charges stemmed from his actions near the World Trade Center site two days after the September 11, 2001, attacks, where he posed as a Red Cross worker and took items from the Millennium Hotel and Century 21 department store. On appeal, the defendant argued the Millennium Hotel was no longer a 'dwelling' for burglary purposes and the merchandise from Century 21 had no value. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the defendant waived his sufficiency claims and, in any event, the hotel still constituted a dwelling and the stolen items retained their value. The court also found no basis for reducing the defendant's sentence.

BurglaryGrand LarcenyCriminal Possession of Stolen PropertySufficiency of EvidenceDwelling DefinitionProperty ValueWaiver of ClaimsAppellate ReviewWorld Trade Center AftermathMillennium Hotel
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Morrell

Claimant Morrell, employed by Onondaga County Department of Social Services, developed respiratory issues and multiple myeloma from formaldehyde exposure, leading to a workers' compensation award. She subsequently sought employer payment for an air purifier, organic food, and vitamin supplements to address consequential upper airway irritation and sinusitis. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed an award for these items, based on medical opinion, prompting the employer's appeal. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found substantial evidence for the causal link between formaldehyde exposure and claimant's current ailments. It ruled that the requested items fell under "other attendance or treatment" in Workers’ Compensation Law § 13 (a), but limited the employer's organic food liability to the cost exceeding conventional food, reversing and remitting the Board's decision for this recalculation.

Workers' CompensationFormaldehyde ExposureRespiratory IllnessSinusitisMedical BenefitsOrganic FoodAir PurifierVitamin SupplementsCausationEmployer Liability
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emspak v. Conroy

The defendants moved for a further bill of particulars regarding item 30 and requested the entire bill be verified by a union officer. The plaintiff's attorney acknowledged the omission for item 30 was an oversight and agreed to provide it. He argued his self-verification was proper under subdivision 3 of rule 99 of the Rules of Civil Practice, citing the plaintiff's absence from the county, and claimed defendants waived objection by not returning the bill within 24 hours. The court clarified that Rules 10 and 11 do not apply to verification. While an attorney can verify a bill of particulars under rule 117, the court ruled that merely stating the party is out of county is insufficient; the attorney must also detail the basis of their knowledge, especially given a prior order requiring an oath for inability to furnish particulars. The motion for a further bill was granted.

Bill of particularsVerificationAttorney verificationRules of Civil PracticeWaiverMotionCourt procedurePleadingSufficiency of verification
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 74 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