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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 08, 1987

Finkelstein v. Bodek

The plaintiff initiated a libel lawsuit against a certified social worker for alleged false statements made in a court-ordered report. This report was designed to assess the mental status of the plaintiff's son, who was involved in a criminal action, and was prepared in accordance with CPL 390.30, requiring inclusion of family history. The Supreme Court dismissed the plaintiff's complaint, a decision which was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court's rationale was that individuals, including court-appointed experts like the defendant social worker, are immune from defamation claims for statements made within judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings, provided these statements are pertinent to the litigation. Consequently, the defendant's statements, made in the fulfillment of quasi-judicial duties for the mental evaluation of the plaintiff's son, could not constitute a basis for a libel action.

LibelDefamationJudicial ImmunityCourt-ordered ReportSocial WorkerMental Status EvaluationCriminal ActionFamily HistoryExpert Witness ImmunityQuasi-judicial Duties
References
4
Case No. ADJ3907382 (AHM 0133851)
Regular
Aug 28, 2009

Mayekal andREW WAGNER vs. WALMART, AVIZENT BENTONVILLE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed the lien claimant's petition for reconsideration because it was not verified as required by law. The applicant's own petition, initially filed as a complaint against the judge, was also denied due to its lack of specificity regarding grounds and supporting evidence. The Board noted the applicant may have intended to file a judicial ethics complaint instead. Therefore, both petitions were ultimately rejected, upholding the original June 12, 2009 Findings, Award, and Orders.

Lien claimantPetition for reconsiderationVerified petitionLabor Code section 5902Judicial ethics complaintComplaint About a Workers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeWCJFindings Award and OrdersUnlawful or unjustMaterial evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 15, 1998

Lawless v. Kera

The plaintiff was awarded partial summary judgment on a Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action, which imposes absolute liability on property owners and contractors for injuries from lack of safety devices when a worker falls from a height. Defendant Michael Kera, a third-party plaintiff and experienced in construction, appealed, arguing he fell under the statutory exception for one- and two-family dwelling owners who don't direct or control the work. The court found Kera did not qualify for the exemption because he was building the house solely for commercial purposes (selling it). The court also denied Kera's cross motion for summary judgment on the third-party complaint and the cross motion of Kera Construction Corp. and Vanessa Development Co., Inc., for summary judgment dismissing the complaint due to existing triable issues of fact. The order was affirmed, upholding the plaintiff's partial summary judgment and denying the defendants' cross motions.

Labor LawPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityStatutory ExceptionCommercial PurposeHomeowner ExemptionConstruction BusinessTriable Issues of FactContributory Negligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Guippone v. Bh S & B Holdings LLC

The court addresses a class action lawsuit under the WARN Act, where terminated employees sued the purchaser of their former employer, Steve & Barry's, for not providing 60 days' notice before a mass layoff. Defendants argued employees were 'part-time' because they worked for the new owner for less than six months. The court rejected this, stating that employment periods with both seller and purchaser should be aggregated for WARN Act purposes. However, the court granted the defendants' motions to dismiss without prejudice, citing the complaint's deficient pleading of facts and instructing the plaintiff to file an amended complaint addressing these deficiencies within twenty days.

WARN ActMass LayoffPlant ClosingEmployment LossAsset PurchaseSuccessor LiabilityPart-Time EmployeesPleading StandardsMotion to DismissBankruptcy
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Alvarez v. Snyder

This case involves an appeal by plaintiffs from a Supreme Court order dismissing their civil rights complaint, brought under 42 USC § 1983. The plaintiffs, pretrial detainees and their mothers, sought damages for alleged constitutional violations, including infringements on freedom of association and speech, and deprivation of liberty without due process, stemming from 'lock down' orders issued by Justice Leslie Snyder. Justice Snyder, presiding over the detainees' criminal trials, appointed social worker Hillel Bodek as a special master, whose actions were also challenged. The lower court dismissed the complaint based on judicial and quasi-judicial immunity. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that both Justice Snyder and Bodek were protected by absolute immunity, as their actions were performed within judicial capacity and supported by the court's inherent power to ensure the integrity of its proceedings.

Judicial ImmunityCivil Rights42 USC 1983Pretrial DetaineesFreedom of AssociationFreedom of SpeechDue ProcessSpecial MasterAbsolute ImmunityQuasi-judicial Immunity
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walsh v. Donovan

Plaintiff, an agent of the Federal Bureau of Investigation, initiated this action seeking judicial review of several decisions by the Department of Labor concerning his workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained in 1979. Although claims for head and knee injuries were approved, his back injury claim was denied, leading him to seek reconsideration and alleging a denial of due process due to a hearing representative's perceived bias. The plaintiff sought court intervention to disqualify the Department of Labor and appoint a special hearing officer. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, citing 5 U.S.C. § 8128(b), which generally bars judicial review of the Secretary of Labor's decisions on workers' compensation. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing the action because the plaintiff had not exhausted his administrative remedies within the Department of Labor, thus deeming the complaint unripe for judicial review.

Workers' CompensationFederal Employees' Compensation ActSubject Matter JurisdictionFailure to State a ClaimRipeness DoctrineExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDue ProcessJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawFBI Agent
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Walstein v. Blank

The plaintiff, an unnamed barmaid, filed a complaint against her employer, Erna Blank, and coemployee, Boger Croudy, after sustaining injuries from an assault by Croudy during her employment. Defendant Erna Blank moved to dismiss the complaint. The court found the complaint deficient because it failed to allege that the employer did not provide workers' compensation insurance or instigated the assault. Citing the Workmen's Compensation Law, the court ruled that the plaintiff's injuries arose in the course of employment, making workers' compensation her exclusive remedy. Consequently, the court granted the defendant Erna Blank's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Workers' CompensationMotion to DismissAssaultCo-employee InjuryExclusive RemedyEmployer LiabilityComplaint Sufficiency
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stilsing Electric, Inc. v. Joyce

Plaintiff, an electrical contracting corporation, initiated a defamation action against the defendant, a business manager for IBEW Local Union No. 724. The defendant had investigated the plaintiff's apprenticeship program, believing it was non-compliant with state labor laws and regulations. He filed complaints with the State Department of Labor, leading to an administrative hearing. Although an initial review found the plaintiff's program compliant, the defendant's persistence led to a formal hearing where the Commissioner of Labor ultimately dismissed the defendant's complaint. The plaintiff then sued for defamation, alleging that the defendant's written and oral statements during this process led to loss of contracts with Albany County. Special Term denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling that he was, at best, entitled to a qualified privilege and that issues of fact regarding malice existed. On appeal, the court determined that the administrative proceeding was quasi-judicial, based on its adversarial nature, reliance on law and facts, and susceptibility to judicial review under CPLR article 78. Consequently, the court concluded that the defendant's communications were protected by an absolute privilege, thereby reversing Special Term's orders and dismissing the plaintiff's complaint.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeQualified PrivilegeAdministrative LawQuasi-Judicial ProceedingsLabor Law ComplianceApprenticeship ProgramsFreedom of ExpressionPublic Policy ArgumentsSummary Judgment Motion
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 4,813 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