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 15, 2012

Hamzik v. Office for People with Developmental Disabilities

Plaintiff John J. Hamzik sued the Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (OPWDD) and several individual employees, alleging discrimination based on sex, age, and disability, as well as equal protection, due process, and retaliation claims under federal and state laws, including Title VII, ADEA, and ADA. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, and plaintiff cross-moved to file a second amended complaint. The District Court, finding that many claims were barred by Eleventh Amendment immunity or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and that the remaining claims failed to state a plausible cause of action, granted the defendants' motion to dismiss. All federal claims were dismissed with prejudice, the cross-motion was denied as futile, and the remaining state law claims were dismissed without prejudice.

DiscriminationRetaliationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionTitle VIIADEAADAEleventh Amendment ImmunityAdministrative ExhaustionMotion to Dismiss
References
50
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Region v. W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal regarding the electrocution death of a construction worker and the application of Labor Law § 240. The decedent, Grover J. Region, an ironworker employed by McBrearity's Metal Building Erectors, was fatally injured on November 18, 1982, when a crane cable he was helping to operate came into contact with high tension electric lines at a construction site in Ulster County. The plaintiff, administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed a lawsuit against property owner William J. Woodward and contractor W. J. Woodward Construction, Inc., among others, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1) due to the failure to provide proper safety measures for crane operation near electrical hazards. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of liability against Woodward and Woodward Construction, who subsequently appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's ruling, finding that the defendants had violated Labor Law § 240 (1) by failing to implement necessary safety precautions for the crane, which was being used as a hoist, thereby incurring absolute liability for the injuries proximately caused.

ElectrocutionConstruction AccidentCrane OperationLabor Law § 240Absolute LiabilityWorker SafetySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractor LiabilityOwner Liability
References
9
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 06859
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 2019

Matter of Sariyah L.J. (Antonio J.)

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Family Court order that denied Antonio J.'s motion to vacate a default order which determined him to be a notice-only father. The court found that Antonio J. failed to provide a reasonable excuse for his default, having chosen to attend a meeting with his shelter worker without notifying his attorney or the court. Furthermore, he failed to demonstrate a meritorious defense, as his affidavit did not establish substantial and continuous contact or financial support for the child, Sariyah L.J., in accordance with Domestic Relations Law § 111 [1] [d]. The appeal from the underlying August 20, 2018 order was dismissed as nonappealable.

Family LawPaternityDefault JudgmentVacaturParental RightsChild CustodyAppellate ProcedureDue ProcessInfant CaseMotion Practice
References
4
Case No. 2021-03335
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2024

Matter of Smallman

This disciplinary proceeding addresses attorney Philip J. Smallman's professional misconduct involving a sexual relationship with his client, CL. CL was a vulnerable survivor of childhood and adult sex trafficking, a fact known to Smallman. The attorney engaged in a series of inappropriate sexual text messages and ultimately physical contact with CL in his office while representing her in a criminal matter. The court found that Smallman violated Rules of Professional Conduct 1.8(j)(1)(ii) and 8.4(h) by employing coercion or undue influence. The Grievance Committee's motion to confirm the Special Referee's report, which sustained both charges, was granted, and Smallman was suspended from practicing law for five years.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsDisciplinary actionAttorney suspensionSexual relations with clientVulnerable clientFiduciary dutySex trafficking survivorRules of Professional ConductAppellate Division Second Department
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

N.K. ex rel. J.K. v. New York City Deptartment of Education

Plaintiffs N.K. and L.W., on behalf of their minor child J.K., sued the New York City Department of Education (DOE) under the IDEA and New York State Education Law, alleging the DOE failed to provide J.K. with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) for the 2011-2012 school year. An impartial hearing officer and a state review officer previously ruled against the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs sought summary judgment to reverse the state review officer's decision and compel tuition reimbursement for J.K.'s private school placement. The defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, arguing J.K. was offered a FAPE. The court granted the defendant's motion and denied the plaintiffs', affirming the administrative rulings that the DOE's proposed IEP was both procedurally and substantively adequate and that J.K. was offered a FAPE.

Education LawIDEARehabilitation ActFAPEIEPSpecial EducationSummary JudgmentDue ProcessExhaustionParental Rights
References
28
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

Payne v. J & T Properties

Henry Payne sustained injuries after falling from a building roof owned by J & T Properties, while employed by Kissane Water Conditioning, Inc. The initial Supreme Court order denied summary judgment motions by KWC and J & T, and partially granted plaintiffs' cross motion related to a Labor Law § 240 claim. The appellate court reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to KWC and J & T, and dismissing the complaint. The reversal was based on the finding that John and Timothy Kissane, partners of J & T, were also co-employees of Payne at KWC, establishing they were "in the same employ". This "same employ" relationship, under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), bars the action against J & T, leading to the dismissal of the complaint.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 240Workers' Compensation Law § 29(6)Same Employ DoctrineThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryFall from RoofEmployer LiabilityCo-employee Immunity
References
3
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
Showing 1-10 of 16,493 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