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
May 26, 2005

Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v. Friedman, Khafif & Associates

This case involves a fee dispute between successor law firm Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, and predecessor firm Friedman, Khafif & Associates, regarding a personal injury action for Pedro Colon. The trial court (IAS court) initially ruled that Friedman, Khafif & Associates forfeited its right to a fee due to alleged misconduct, including failure to file a derivative claim for Mrs. Colon, settling without client consent, and delayed retainer statement filing. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding no evidence of misconduct. It determined that the Friedman Firm's actions were proper, the settlement was conditional, and the retainer statement delay was ministerial. Consequently, the Friedman Firm was awarded a percentage of the initial settlement offer it secured, and Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP was awarded its negotiated share of the enhanced settlement amount.

Fee DisputeAttorney MisconductDischarge for CauseQuantum MeruitContingency FeeLegal EthicsAttorney LienPersonal InjurySettlement AgreementAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

Friedman v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Civil Court judgment that awarded the plaintiff, Paul Friedman, L.Ac., LMT, the principal sum of $2,160 for assigned first-party no-fault benefits for acupuncture services. The defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, denied the claims based on an independent medical examination (IME) by Dr. Chiu, which concluded that the assignor's injuries had resolved. However, the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Friedman, testified that further treatment was necessary. The Civil Court found the services medically necessary, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating medical necessity.

AcupunctureMedical NecessityNo-Fault BenefitsIMEAssignorProvider ActionCivil Court AppealExpert TestimonyInsurance Denial
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07932 [144 AD3d 993]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2016

Markowits v. Friedman

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order in a case involving a dispute over the sale of interests in home health care companies. Plaintiffs, Sara and Alexander Markowits and their companies, alleged breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, claiming the Friedmans concealed pending actions and investigations. The Supreme Court had granted summary judgment to some defendants, dismissed parts of the complaint, and compelled arbitration. The Appellate Division upheld this decision, finding the defendants proved their entitlement to judgment, proposed amendments lacked merit due to no fiduciary duty for fraudulent concealment or aiding and abetting, and the arbitration agreement was valid despite fraud claims related to the broader contract.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementSummary JudgmentArbitration AgreementFiduciary DutyAiding and AbettingAppellate ReviewBusiness SaleEmployment LawConfidentiality Agreements
References
39
Case No. 535356
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Jeffrey Christie

Claimant Jeffrey Christie, a tour manager for Universal Music Group (doing business as Def Jam Records), sustained injuries in August 2018 when he was assaulted and shot in Missouri. His workers' compensation claim, alleging injury to his right leg and posttraumatic stress disorder, was controverted by the employer and its carrier, who argued he was an independent contractor. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found Christie to be an employee and that prima facie medical evidence existed for work-related injuries. The carrier's subsequent application for review by the Workers' Compensation Board was denied for failing to specify an objection to the WCLJ's decision, as required by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b). The Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's decision, upholding the Board's discretion to deny review for non-compliance, noting that a recently enacted law, Workers' Compensation Law § 23-a, which would provide leniency for application defects, was not yet effective at the time of the carrier's application.

Workers' Compensation BoardApplication for ReviewProcedural ComplianceAppellate Division Third DepartmentEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent Contractor StatusWCLJ Decision ReviewForm RB-89 RequirementsRegulatory Non-complianceStatutory Effective Date
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1994

In re Friedman

Theodore H. Friedman, an attorney, faced 23 charges of professional misconduct, stemming from his representation in three personal injury cases, including Mowen v Yangming Mar. Transp. Corp. and Estate of Krieger v City of New York. A Special Referee sustained 14 charges, encompassing making false statements under oath, soliciting false testimony, failing to supervise his investigator, and fee splitting with a nonlawyer. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee petitioned for a severe sanction, while Friedman sought dismissal or censure. The First Judicial Department confirmed the sustained charges, disaffirmed the recommended two-year suspension, and ordered Friedman's disbarment, citing a pattern of intentional dishonesty and contempt for the legal process. The disbarment was effective April 22, 1994.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsFalse testimonyDisbarmentPerjuryFee splittingWitness tamperingDisciplinary rulesNew York State BarAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08419 [155 AD3d 1470]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2017

Matter of Paige J. (Jeffrey K.)

This case involves an appeal by Jeffrey K. (respondent father) from an order of the Family Court of Tompkins County, which adjudicated his two children as permanently neglected and terminated his parental rights. The Tompkins County Department of Social Services (petitioner) initiated the proceeding after the father failed to comply with a suspended judgment and adequately plan for the children's future, primarily due to his continued cohabitation with the children's mother, who had an uncontrolled drug addiction. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that the petitioner made diligent efforts to encourage and strengthen the parental relationship, and that the father, despite being able, failed to adequately plan for the children's future by not establishing a safe, sober, and stable home free from the mother's illicit drug use.

Parental RightsPermanent NeglectChild WelfareSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewFamily CourtDrug AddictionReunification EffortsSuspended JudgmentChild Protective Services
References
0
Case No. CA 11-00457, CLAIM NO. 111910
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2011

DIPALMA, JEFFREY v. STATE OF NEW YORK

Claimant Jeffrey DiPalma sought damages for injuries sustained when a large skid box containing concrete debris fell from a forklift and struck him. The Court of Claims found the State of New York 100% liable under Labor Law § 240 (1) and § 241 (6) following the liability portion of a bifurcated trial. The defendant appealed, arguing the falsus in uno doctrine should have been applied to discredit the claimant's testimony due to alleged inconsistencies, and that Labor Law § 240 (1) was inapplicable due to a de minimis height differential. The Appellate Division rejected these contentions, affirming the lower court's judgment. The court noted the falsus in uno doctrine is not mandatory and that the elevation differential, though small, was significant considering the object's weight and potential harm. Liability under Labor Law § 241 (6) was also upheld, based on a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b) regarding debris handling.

Personal InjuryLabor LawForklift AccidentConstruction SafetyFalsus in Uno DoctrineWitness CredibilityElevation DifferentialGravity-Related AccidentDebris HandlingAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2013

A.X.M.S. Corp. v. Friedman

This Memorandum Decision & Order addresses a motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by A.X.M.S. Corp. (AXMS) against Marvin Friedman, Joyce Friedman, James Dong, and Masterpiece Leather Works, Ltd. The dispute stems from a declared "deadlock" within Masterpiece Leather Works' board of directors concerning two major policy issues: the restructuring of Masterpiece and its Chinese manufacturing partner, Artisan, to address Chinese transfer pricing/tax concerns, and the approval of the annual budget, specifically executive salaries for Friedman and Dong. AXMS sought a declaration that the deadlock was invalid and an injunction to prevent post-deadlock activities. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that AXMS failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the improper declaration of a deadlock on either issue, and also failed to prove irreparable harm, noting that any alleged harm could be remedied by monetary damages. AXMS had previously elected to purchase Friedman and Dong’s interests in Masterpiece for $12 million.

Corporate governanceShareholder disputeBoard deadlockPreliminary injunctionContract interpretationGood faithIrreparable harmCorporate restructuringTransfer pricingTax compliance
References
32
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01740 [214 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Galicia v. Asrar

Lucio Galicia, injured in an accident, received workers' compensation benefits from Tower Insurance Company. Defendant tendered a settlement offer of $25,000. Galicia's attorney, Friedman, was to receive $8,333, and Tower the remainder, but Galicia declined the settlement. Tower intervened to protect its lien. Friedman moved for discharge and a charging lien of $8,333.33, representing his share of the rejected settlement. The Supreme Court granted Friedman's motion for a charging lien. The Appellate Division reversed this order, stating the motion court erred as the sum never attached to a settlement or judgment. The court also noted it was unclear how much work Friedman did or the amount of recovery. Tower was not estopped from opposing Friedman's claim as its position was consistent and it received no benefit from its prior position.

Charging LienWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAttorney FeesEquitable ApportionmentSettlement RejectionIntervenorQuantum MeruitStatutory LienAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
3
Case No. 8 N.Y.3d 1007
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2007

MATTER OF GREENE COUNTY DEPT. OF SOCIAL SERVICES v. Ward

Dawn Ward adopted Jeffrey, a special needs child with severe behavioral and developmental issues, and received a monthly adoption subsidy. When Jeffrey's behavior escalated, posing safety risks, Ms. Ward attempted a temporary relinquishment of parental rights to the Greene County Department of Social Services (GCDSS). GCDSS, however, only allowed a permanent surrender, which Ms. Ward accepted. Subsequently, GCDSS initiated a petition for child support against Ms. Ward, who challenged the obligation on grounds of statutory exception and equitable estoppel. The Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that as an adoptive parent, Ms. Ward retained the financial support obligation, and the specific statutory exception for unwed biological mothers did not apply to her. The court also highlighted GCDSS's failure to provide Ms. Ward with required notifications and access to support services, although these omissions did not alter the child support ruling in this case.

Adoption LawChild Support ObligationParental RightsSpecial Needs ChildrenSocial Services LawEquitable EstoppelNew York Court of AppealsFamily LawChild WelfareVoluntary Surrender
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 177 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