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

Johns v. AMC Beauty Salon

Petitioner Angelo Johns claimed an unapproved sublease from AMC Beauty Salon for psychic office space at 465 Lexington Avenue, New York. AMC surrendered the entire premises to Sol Goldman Investments, LLC (SGI) on June 2, 2010, representing no other occupants were present. Johns, who paid cash rent to AMC and avoided SGI detection, returned from vacation to find the premises locked. The court found Johns's testimony not fully credible regarding his regular presence and SGI's knowledge of the sublease. SGI credibly testified they were unaware of the sublease and saw no evidence of Johns's occupancy during a walk-through. Concluding Johns purposely hid his occupancy and SGI had no knowledge of it, the court dismissed the petition.

Landlord-TenantSubleaseVoluntary SurrenderOccupancy RightsUnapproved SubleaseCommercial LeasePsychic BusinessEvictionNew York LawCredibility Findings

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

John Lack Associates, LLC, an agency placing waiters and bartenders, was audited by the Department of Labor, which determined these workers were employees, making John Lack liable for unemployment insurance contributions. This determination was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board. On appeal, the court reversed the Board's decision, finding insufficient evidence of John Lack's control over the workers. The court noted that workers could refuse jobs, often worked for other agencies, provided their own equipment, and were supervised and directed by the client at events, who also paid their remuneration through John Lack. The case was remitted to the Board for further proceedings.

Employer-employee relationshipIndependent contractorUnemployment insurance contributionsAgency controlRight to controlRemittedAppellate reviewSubstantial evidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 26, 2006

In re John T.

Holliswood Care Center appealed an order awarding attorneys' fees against it in a guardianship proceeding for John T. The Supreme Court had initially found John T. competent but awarded fees to the petitioner, temporary guardian, and Mental Hygiene Legal Service, citing Holliswood's "reprehensible actions" in detaining Mr. T. Holliswood argued it was not given notice that the guardianship hearing would determine attorney's fees against it and was not afforded an opportunity to present evidence regarding its actions, which it claimed were based on safety concerns, not Mr. T.'s competency. The appellate court reversed the order, holding that the Supreme Court improperly proceeded with the hearing and improvidently awarded attorneys' fees without proper notice and opportunity to be heard for Holliswood. Furthermore, the court found that the award of attorneys' fees against Holliswood was not authorized by Mental Hygiene Law article 81 nor justified under common law exceptions.

GuardianshipAttorneys' FeesMental Hygiene LawIncapacitated PersonAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessNotice RequirementNursing Home DetentionElderly CareCompetency Evaluation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Brian v. Johns

Petitioner Carol Brian initiated an action against respondent Frank T. Johns to establish paternity for her child, Sara, born March 4, 1973, and to secure child support. A court-ordered blood grouping test, conducted at the respondent's expense following an order on January 2, 1974, excluded Mr. Johns as the father. Unsatisfied with these results, the petitioner requested a second blood test, but the court denied this motion after reconsideration, citing respondent's opposition and the lack of statutory authority in Section 532 of the Family Court Act for ordering a second test over objection. The court ruled that the trial should proceed, requiring the respondent to present the performing doctor as a witness to explain the test's basis and procedure, allowing the petitioner to question its accuracy. The decision acknowledged a potential margin of error in such tests and affirmed the petitioner's opportunity to rebut the blood test evidence, as it is not the sole determinant of paternity.

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

This case involves motions by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and Boston and Maine Corporation (B&M) for mandatory withdrawal of reference from the Bankruptcy Court. The plaintiffs sought rulings that their claims against Johns-Manville Corporation, related to asbestos waste cleanup costs under CERCLA, were not barred by the automatic bankruptcy stay. The District Court examined whether the resolution of these adversary proceedings required substantial and material consideration of both the Bankruptcy Code (Title 11) and other federal laws, specifically CERCLA. Finding that significant interpretation of both federal statutes was necessary to determine when the claims arose and their interaction with the automatic stay, the court granted the motions.

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment

References

Case No. ADJ3093533 (MON 259690) ADJ676332 (MON 257523)

Regular

May 15, 2009

PEARLENE POWELL vs. SO. CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM; ST. JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

The Appeals Board denied Kaiser's petition for reconsideration, upholding the finding that the applicant's permanent disability was 100% and not subject to apportionment to St. John's employment. St. John's petition for reconsideration was granted in part to correct a procedural error. The Board amended the prior decision to reinstate the applicant's January 11, 2005 Amended Findings, Award and Order, confirming the prior findings.

ApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial EvidencePermanent DisabilityReconsiderationPetitionFindings and OrderAmended FindingsAwardOrder

References

Case No. No. 38

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 11, 2019

The People v. John Giuca

John Giuca was convicted of second-degree murder, first-degree robbery, and second-degree criminal weapon possession. His appeal, based on a CPL 440.10 motion, alleged Brady violations and prosecutorial misconduct concerning a jailhouse informant (JA). Giuca claimed the prosecution failed to disclose impeachment material related to JA's pending burglary case, drug treatment violations, and the prosecutor's involvement in JA's court appearances. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, reinstating the Supreme Court's denial of Giuca's motion. The Court found no reasonable possibility that the undisclosed evidence would have altered the verdict, citing extensive impeachment material already available and strong evidence of guilt.

Murder convictionBrady violationImpeachment evidenceJailhouse informantProsecutorial misconductDue processCriminal procedureCPL 440.10 motionMaterialityTacit agreement

References

Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 29391

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 12, 2019

People v. DeRaffele (John)

John DeRaffele appealed five judgments of conviction for violating sections of the Code of the City of New Rochelle related to the nonconforming use of his home and unpermitted alterations. The Appellate Term reversed convictions under Code § 111-8 (docket Nos. 70063 and 70065) due to insufficient evidence regarding the timing of alterations (bathroom/kitchen) and the deck construction, dismissing those informations. Additionally, two convictions under Code § 331-11 (A) (docket Nos. 70064 and 70097) were reversed and dismissed in the interest of justice because they were multiplicitous to a third charge under the same section. The judgment convicting DeRaffele under City Court docket No. 70098 for nonconforming use was affirmed but the maximum fine of $2,500 was reduced to $500 as a matter of discretion.

MultiplicityDuplicityZoning OrdinancesNonconforming UseBuilding PermitsAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyFinesRecusal

References

Case No. 08-cv-3546 (ADS)(WDW)

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 19, 2011

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

This civil rights case was brought by three African-American employees, Leo Smith, Jr., Benjamin Cannon, Jr., and John Christopher Smith, against the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation Sanitary District No. 2 and several individual defendants. Plaintiffs alleged a hostile work environment based on a noose incident and subsequent retaliation for filing EEOC complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims against the Sanitary District, Robert Noble, Michael McDermott, and Nicholas Dionisio, citing triable issues of fact regarding the severity of the environment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions. However, summary judgment was granted for defendant John Beyer and the Board of Commissioners on these claims. Retaliation claims by John Smith and Benjamin Cannon were dismissed, but Leo Smith's retaliation claim against Michael McDermott and the Sanitary District was allowed to proceed. All claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were dismissed due to lack of evidence of agreement and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983New York State Human Rights LawIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine

References

Case No. CV-23-2356

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Ackerler

Claimant John Ackerler appealed a decision by the Workers' Compensation Board that denied his request for an extreme hardship redetermination under Workers' Compensation Law § 35 (3). Ackerler, who suffered a work-related back injury in 2012 and was later classified with a permanent partial disability, sought reclassification to permanent total disability due to financial hardship. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board found that Ackerler failed to demonstrate extreme hardship, citing insufficient evidence regarding household income and questionable expenses. The Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, affirmed the Board's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that Ackerler did not show financial hardship beyond the ordinary.

Extreme HardshipWorkers' Compensation BenefitsPermanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityReclassificationFinancial HardshipHousehold IncomeMonthly ExpensesAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law

References

Showing 1-10 of 943 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Johns v. AMC Beauty Salon

Landlord-TenantSubleaseVoluntary SurrenderOccupancy RightsUnapproved SubleaseCommercial LeasePsychic BusinessEvictionNew York LawCredibility Findings

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

In re John Lack Associates, LLC

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Jan 26, 2006

In re John T.

GuardianshipAttorneys' FeesMental Hygiene LawIncapacitated PersonAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessNotice RequirementNursing Home DetentionElderly CareCompetency Evaluation

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Brian v. Johns

paternityblood testFamily Court Actevidencetrialmotion deniedchild supportmedical examination accuracyserologyhemotology

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Johns-Manville Corp. (In Re Johns-Manville Corp.)

BankruptcyWithdrawal of ReferenceCERCLAAutomatic StayEnvironmental LawFederal JurisdictionStatutory InterpretationContributionIndemnificationDeclaratory Judgment

References

Case No. ADJ3093533 (MON 259690) ADJ676332 (MON 257523)

Regular

May 15, 2009

PEARLENE POWELL vs. SO. CALIFORNIA PERMANENTE MEDICAL GROUP, KAISER PERMANENTE MEDICAL CARE PROGRAM; ST. JOHN'S HEALTH CENTER, administered by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC.

ApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerSubstantial EvidencePermanent DisabilityReconsiderationPetitionFindings and OrderAmended FindingsAwardOrder

References

Case No. No. 38

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 11, 2019

The People v. John Giuca

Murder convictionBrady violationImpeachment evidenceJailhouse informantProsecutorial misconductDue processCriminal procedureCPL 440.10 motionMaterialityTacit agreement

References

Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 29391

Regular Panel Decision

Dec 12, 2019

People v. DeRaffele (John)

MultiplicityDuplicityZoning OrdinancesNonconforming UseBuilding PermitsAppellate ReviewWeight of EvidenceLegal SufficiencyFinesRecusal

References

Case No. 08-cv-3546 (ADS)(WDW)

Regular Panel Decision

Jul 19, 2011

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983New York State Human Rights LawIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine

References

Case No. CV-23-2356

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 27, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of John Ackerler

References

Showing 1-10 of 943 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.