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 06475 [210 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2022

Kreutzberg v. Law Offs. of John Riconda, P.C.

The plaintiff, Thomas Kreutzberg, commenced an action to recover damages for legal malpractice against the Law Offices of John Riconda, P.C. The plaintiff alleged that the defendants failed to obtain the required consent from his workers' compensation carrier for the settlement of a no-fault and personal injury claim in 2009, violating Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5). The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint as time-barred under CPLR 3211 (a) (5). The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted the motion, ruling that the three-year statute of limitations for legal malpractice accrued in 2009 and had expired by the time the action was commenced in 2020. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants successfully established the action was time-barred and the plaintiff failed to raise a question of fact in opposition.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 3211 (a) (5)Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5)Appellate DivisionSuffolk CountyTime-barred claimConsent RequirementNo-fault claim settlementPersonal injury action settlement
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers

Plaintiff Charles B. MeLaurin filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous New Rochelle police officers and city officials, including Peter Kornas, Louis Falcone, Brian Fagan, David Lornegan, Edward Martinez, Dominic Procopio, Mayor Timothy Idoni, and the City of New Rochelle. MeLaurin alleged constitutional rights violations stemming from two arrests: one for assault on August 6, 2001, and another for criminal contempt on September 28, 2002. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The court granted dismissal with prejudice for most defendants, finding their actions objectively reasonable or lacking personal involvement, or due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim or comply with state law. Claims against Officers Lynch, Lore, Conca, Al-Fattaah, Kamau, and Navarette were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal involvement. Officer Dina Lynn Moretti's motion was converted to one for summary judgment, giving the plaintiff 45 days to provide evidence regarding probable cause for the second arrest. State law claims were also dismissed due to non-compliance with New York General Municipal Law notice-of-claim requirements.

Excessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityPro Se LitigationMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56Civil Rights Violation
References
59
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01728
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2019

O'Dwyer v. Law Offs. of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC

This case involves a fee-sharing dispute between Ginarte, O'Dwyer, Gonzalez, Gallardo & Winograd, L.L.P. (plaintiff) and The Law Offices of Rex E. Zachofsky, PLLC (defendant) concerning Workers' Compensation cases. The plaintiff moved to compel discovery, and the defendants moved for partial summary judgment on the breach of contract claim. The Supreme Court initially denied both motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the order by granting the plaintiff's discovery motion, allowing access to the Workers' Compensation Board's eCase system for referred cases. The court affirmed the denial of partial summary judgment for the defendants, noting that the breach of contract claim could not be resolved as a matter of law due to evidence of the plaintiff's firm's participation. An appeal and cross-appeal from a subsequent order denying reargument were dismissed as nonappealable.

Fee-sharing agreementBreach of contractRules of Professional ConductDiscovery disputeWorkers' Compensation casesAppellate reviewSummary judgmentAttorney responsibilityE-discoveryLegal ethics
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M. Cristo, Inc. v. State of New York Office of General Services

This dissenting opinion by Staley, Jr., J. concerns the rejection of a low bid from a petitioner by the Office of General Services. The rejection was based on the petitioner's unresolved labor dispute with Laborers Local No. 190, which the Office of General Services feared would cause disruption and delay to the South Mall project, a 'time of the essence' contract. Staley, Jr., J. argues that the State's action was lawful, citing State Finance Law § 174 and previous cases that permit bid rejection in the best interests of the State, especially when a labor dispute threatens project completion. The dissent distinguishes this case from precedents involving mere threats of union action. However, the majority decision, which this opinion dissents from, reversed the judgment and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Labor DisputeBid RejectionState ContractPublic WorksTime of EssenceJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionProcurement LawNonunion WorkersProject Delay
References
3
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. ADJ7192006
Regular
Apr 01, 2014

GENE GOODREAU vs. LAW OFFICES OF MARC ELLIOTT GROSSMAN, THE HARTFORD

This case concerns a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the defendant, Law Offices of Marc Elliott Grossman and The Hartford, regarding a prior Findings and Award. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted the petition to allow for further study of the factual and legal issues. This reconsideration is necessary to ensure a comprehensive understanding of the record and facilitate a just decision. All future communications regarding this case must be filed in writing with the WCAB Commissioners' office in San Francisco, not with any district office or via e-filing.

Petition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual and Legal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionDecision After ReconsiderationOffice of the CommissionersElectronic Adjudication Management SystemWCABLos Angeles District Office
References
0
Case No. ADJ7836773
Regular
Jul 09, 2012

Francisco Flores vs. Superior Carpet Works, Inc., Preferred Employers

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration of a sanctions order against the Law Offices of John A. Mendoza. The Appeals Board is also notifying the law firm of its intention to impose additional sanctions. This is due to alleged misrepresentations of fact in the petition for reconsideration and violations of Appeals Board rules regarding attaching previously filed documents. The law firm is granted twenty days to show cause why these additional sanctions should not be imposed.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDSANCTIONSRECONSIDERATIONDEPOSITION ATTORNEY FEESLABOR CODE SECTION 5710LABOR CODE SECTION 5813APPEALS BOARD RULESDUE PROCESSMISREPRESENTATIONSFAILURE TO RESPOND
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Canty v. Office of Counsel

The petitioner, an inmate at Southport Correctional Facility, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of his Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. He sought accident reports of correction officers injured during a riot at Auburn Correctional Facility. The respondent, Department of Correctional Services, argued that the documents were exempt under privacy and confidentiality statutes, including Public Officers Law and Civil Rights Law. The court granted the petition in part, ordering the production of the upper portion of the accident/injury reports for Correction Officers Peter Kuc, Richard Knight, and Jeffrey W. Claflin, with specific redactions for personal information. However, the court denied access to the lower, medical portion of these reports and workers' compensation benefit election forms, deeming them exempt under various statutes including HIPAA and Public Health Law.

FOILCPLR Article 78Government RecordsPrivacyPublic Officers LawCivil Rights LawCorrection OfficersAccident ReportsInmate PetitionerRedaction
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 15,875 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