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

Kirschner v. KPMG LLP

This opinion addresses two appeals, Kirschner v KPMG LLP and Teachers’ Retirement System of Louisiana v PricewaterhouseCoopers LLP, concerning the expansion of remedies for creditors or shareholders against outside professional advisers for corporate financial fraud. Plaintiffs sought to reinterpret New York law regarding in pari delicto, imputation, and the adverse interest exception to broaden third-party liability. The New York Court of Appeals declined to alter its established precedents, affirming the narrow scope of the adverse interest exception. The Court emphasized that allowing corporations to shift responsibility for their agents' misconduct to third parties would undermine public policy goals of deterring illegality and would unfairly burden the innocent stakeholders of professional firms. The decision concludes by answering the certified questions in accordance with this reasoning, reinforcing the existing framework of New York law on these doctrines.

In pari delictoImputationAdverse interest exceptionCorporate fraudAuditor liabilityProfessional malpracticeBankruptcy lawAgency lawShareholder derivative actionCertified questions
References
44
Case No. 05-CV-4424 (DRH)
Regular Panel Decision

NEWMAN AND CAHN, LLP. v. Sharp

This case involves a Notice of Removal filed by Linda Sharp, a non-party, seeking to transfer an action from the Supreme Court of the State of New York, County of Suffolk, to federal court. The original state court action was between Newman & Cahn, LLP, as plaintiff, and Michael Sharp, as defendant, concerning legal services. Linda Sharp, Michael Sharp's former spouse, alleged due process and federal statute violations as grounds for removal. The District Court denied Linda Sharp's Petition for Removal and granted Newman & Cahn, LLP's motion to remand the case back to state court, concluding that a non-party lacks standing for removal and alleged state court due process violations do not establish federal removal jurisdiction. Additionally, the Court denied the plaintiff's request for attorney's fees and sanctions, noting pro se litigants are generally not entitled to such awards.

Federal JurisdictionRemoval of ActionRemandPro Se LitigantDue Process ViolationsNon-Party RemovalAttorneys' FeesRule 11 SanctionsSubject Matter JurisdictionStanding to Remove
References
29
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02454 [160 AD3d 714]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2018

Moody v. Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP

Plaintiff William Moody, a maintenance worker, sustained back injuries while lifting a heavy garbage bag during his employment for a nonparty providing property management services. He commenced a personal injury action against Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP (incorrectly sued as Kelly Drye & Warren, LLP), a tenant in the building where the accident occurred. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this decision, finding that the defendant established its prima facie entitlement to judgment by demonstrating the garbage bag was not over an agreed weight and the injury was an inherent risk of the plaintiff's work. The defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was therefore granted.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewMaintenance WorkerWorkplace AccidentPremises LiabilityInherent RiskDuty of CareNegligenceTenant Liability
References
4
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. 2024 NY Slip Op 00992 [224 AD3d 622]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2024

Zeetogroup, LLC v. Baker Hostetler, LLP

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of Zeetogroup, LLC's claims against Baker Hostetler LLP and Marc Powers. The dismissal against Powers was upheld due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with CPLR 306-b regarding timely service, as they did not demonstrate reasonable diligence for an extension. The dismissal against Baker Hostetler LLP, concerning a malicious prosecution claim, was affirmed under New York's choice of law rules, which mandated applying California law. California law bars malicious prosecution claims stemming from contractually agreed-upon arbitrations, which was the case here.

DismissalService of ProcessCPLR 306-bCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3211 (a) (8)Malicious ProsecutionChoice of LawCalifornia LawArbitrationAppellate Procedure
References
8
Case No. 11 Civ. 8967; 12 Civ. 1364
Regular Panel Decision

Geron ex rel. Thelen LLP v. Robinson & Cole LLP

This case involves a Chapter 7 trustee, Yann Geron, for the dissolved law firm Thelen LLP, who brought fraudulent transfer claims against Seyfarth Shaw LLP and Robinson & Cole LLP. The trustee sought to recover profits from former Thelen partners, arguing that pending hourly fee matters are assets of the dissolved firm. The court ruled that under New York law, pending hourly fee matters are not partnership assets, granting Seyfarth Shaw's motion. However, under California law, such matters could be considered assets if profits exceed 'reasonable compensation,' leading to the denial of Robinson & Cole's motion. The court also certified the order for interlocutory appeal, citing controlling legal questions and substantial grounds for differing opinions on the unfinished business doctrine.

Law Firm BankruptcyUnfinished Business DoctrinePartnership AssetsFraudulent Transfer ClaimsHourly Fee MattersContingency Fee MattersChoice of Law DisputeNew York LawCalifornia LawInterlocutory Appeal
References
58
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 31, 2011

Lue v. Finkelstein & Partners, LLP

Plaintiff Lue sued the law firm Finkelstein & Partners, LLP for legal malpractice, alleging their failure to preserve his Labor Law § 240 claim against K-Mart Corporation during bankruptcy resulted in reduced recovery. The Supreme Court granted Lue's motion for partial summary judgment on liability. Defendants appealed, arguing Lue sustained no damages beyond a prior settlement. The Appellate Division found unresolved factual issues regarding K-Mart's additional insured status and the enforceability of an indemnification clause, which precluded summary judgment for either party. The court therefore reversed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lue, denying his motion, and affirmed the order as modified.

Legal MalpracticeLabor Law § 240BankruptcySummary JudgmentIndemnification ClauseAdditional Insured StatusInsurance Law § 3420Appellate DivisionCausation of DamagesFactual Issues
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02434 [160 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2018

Encalada v. McCarthy, Chachanover & Rosado, LLP

Plaintiff, Jorge Encalada, suffered an injury in a 2001 work accident and subsequently sought legal representation from the defendant law firm, McCarthy, Chachanover & Rosado, LLP. The firm represented Encalada in a workers' compensation case until 2004. In 2007, Encalada filed a legal malpractice suit against the defendant, alleging negligence in failing to file a timely notice of claim and a personal injury lawsuit against municipal entities. The Supreme Court initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, ruling the malpractice claim was time-barred by the three-year statute of limitations. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision. The appellate court found a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the continuous representation doctrine tolled the statute of limitations, thereby potentially making the plaintiff's claim timely. The court also clarified that a credibility dispute regarding the plaintiff's initial conversation with the defendant was a matter for the fact-finder, not appropriate for resolution at the summary judgment stage.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsContinuous Representation DoctrineSummary JudgmentWorkers' CompensationAppellate DivisionPersonal Injury ClaimCredibility IssueTollingLaw Firm Negligence
References
5
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02960 [138 AD3d 920]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2016

Felix v. Klee & Woolf, LLP

Luis Felix sued Klee & Woolf, LLP for legal malpractice, alleging the firm failed to pursue negligence and Labor Law claims against the City of New York and the Parks Department after he was injured while working at Van Cortlandt Park. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the legal malpractice claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that Felix would not have prevailed in the underlying personal injury action. The court determined that Felix's work of seeding a cricket field did not fall under Labor Law §§ 240(1) or 241(6), and neither the City nor the Parks Department had authority to supervise his work for claims under Labor Law § 200 or common-law negligence.

Legal malpracticeSummary judgmentAppellate DivisionLabor LawPersonal injuryNotice of claimWorkers' Compensation benefitsConstruction safetyWorkplace accidentProximate cause
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Martinez v. Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP

Eunice Martinez sued her former employer, Davis Polk & Wardwell LLP, alleging discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. Martinez claimed she was denied promotions/upgrades, received discriminatory annual raises, and experienced retaliation for filing a charge with the EEOC. The court applied the McDonnell Douglas burden-shifting analysis to her claims. It found Martinez failed to establish a prima facie case for failure to promote/upgrade due to insufficient evidence regarding comparable qualifications and job duties. Her claim of raise discrimination was also denied because her comparators held managerial positions, unlike her. Finally, the retaliation claim was dismissed as adverse job actions predated her protected activity. Consequently, Davis Polk's motion for summary judgment was granted.

DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1981Summary JudgmentFailure to PromoteUnequal PayEEOC ComplaintMcDonnell Douglas TestEmployment Law
References
20
Showing 1-10 of 173 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