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
Nov 25, 2008

Barnett v. Schwartz

The plaintiffs sued their attorneys for legal malpractice concerning a lease and purchase option agreement for commercial property. The property was classified as an inactive hazardous waste disposal site, a fact the attorneys, Jeffrey Schwartz and his law firm, knew but allegedly failed to disclose to the plaintiffs, advising them to enter an "as is" agreement. Two years later, the plaintiffs discovered the environmental contamination. The attorneys then reportedly advised them to continue paying rent and exercise the purchase option, assuring a quick cleanup, which ultimately took three years. A jury found the defendants liable for malpractice for failing to inform the plaintiffs about the environmental issues and the implications of the "as is" clause. The appellate court upheld the jury's findings on liability and damages but modified the judgment to include an award of prejudgment interest to the plaintiffs.

Legal MalpracticeProfessional NegligenceEnvironmental ContaminationAs Is ClauseProperty LeasePurchase OptionProximate CauseDamagesPrejudgment InterestAppellate Review
References
30
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1993

Krug v. Offerman, Fallon, Mahoney & Cassano

The plaintiff, an attorney, sued the law firm Offerman, Fallon, Mahoney & Cassano and its partner Leo J. Fallon for breach of contract regarding a fee-splitting agreement. The plaintiff was retained by the firm to represent their client, Charles Hahn, in workers' compensation hearings, specifically to oppose the claim and preserve Hahn's personal injury action. The plaintiff's efforts were successful, leading to a $1.8 million settlement in the personal injury case and a $600,000 contingent fee for the firm. The firm subsequently refused to pay the plaintiff a percentage of the fee. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and the invalidity of the fee-splitting agreement under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court denied the motions, finding the action was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and the fee agreement was enforceable. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was for services rendered in the personal injury action and that a fee-splitting agreement does not require a writing unless joint responsibility is assumed, which was not the case here.

breach of contractfee-splitting agreementworkers' compensationpersonal injury litigationattorney compensationjurisdictionprofessional ethicsappellate reviewcontingent feeslegal malpractice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ZOLFAGHARI, MOSTAFA v. HUGHES NETWORK SYSTEMS, LLC

Plaintiff commenced a Labor Law and common-law negligence action after falling from a ladder while removing a satellite dish at a gas station. The Supreme Court denied plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) and granted the defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment, dismissing the main complaint. The court also granted Atlanta's cross-motion for summary judgment, dismissing Exxon's third-party complaint for contractual indemnification, citing an express negation of third-party beneficiary intent. On appeal, the higher court rejected the plaintiff's arguments concerning Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6), determining the work did not constitute 'alteration' or 'demolition'. Furthermore, Exxon's appeal regarding its coverage under the indemnification agreement was also rejected.

Labor LawNegligenceSummary JudgmentLadder FallSatellite Dish RemovalAlteration of BuildingDemolitionContractual IndemnificationThird-Party BeneficiaryAppellate Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2014

CELLINO & BARNES, P.C. v. LAW OFFICE OF CHRISTOPHER J. CASSAR

This appeal arises from a dispute between two law firms concerning attorney's fees. The plaintiff law firm initially represented a client in a personal injury action. The client subsequently discharged the plaintiff and retained the defendant law firms. The plaintiff then commenced an action against the defendants in Erie County, seeking attorney's fees on a quantum meruit basis and alleging frivolous and fraudulent conduct. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint and to transfer venue. The court granted the dismissal of the second and third causes of action related to frivolous and fraudulent conduct but affirmed the denial of dismissal for the first cause of action and the denial of the motion to transfer venue.

Attorney's FeesCharging LienQuantum MeruitLegal MalpracticeFrivolous ConductFraudMotion to DismissVenue TransferCPLR 3211CPLR 510
References
13
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

Mayor of New York v. Council of New York

This dissenting opinion argues against the majority's decision upholding New York City Local Laws 18 and 19 (2001), which unilaterally expanded the definition of uniformed services employees to alter the scope of collective bargaining. Judge Read contends that these local laws are preempted by the statewide Taylor Law, which grants the Mayor exclusive authority over negotiating with municipal unions. The dissent highlights the historical context of New York City's collective bargaining system, established through a tripartite agreement in 1966 and subsequently codified, emphasizing that changes to this scope were traditionally negotiated, not legislated by the City Council. The opinion asserts that the Council's actions infringe upon the Mayor's management rights and exceed its legislative authority under Civil Service Law § 212, which only permits local legislation in specific areas like representation status or impasse procedures. Judge Read warns that the decision destabilizes long-settled labor relations and allows the Council to act as an unauthorized negotiator.

Taylor LawCollective BargainingPublic Sector Labor RelationsLocal Law PreemptionNew York City Administrative CodeMunicipal UnionsCivil Service LawExecutive OrdersLegislative AuthorityManagement Rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirkin & Gordon, P. C. v. Suffolk County-Local 852 Civil Service Employees Ass'n Legal Services Fund

This case involves an appeal by the Legal Services Fund (defendant) from an order denying its motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint filed by a law firm (plaintiff). The plaintiff law firm sued the Legal Services Fund for breach of retainer agreements and non-payment for services. The defendant sought dismissal based on res judicata, arguing that a prior federal lawsuit, which was dismissed on the merits, barred the state action. The federal action, filed by the plaintiff law firm against county legislators and welfare fund trustees, alleged a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983 by terminating their retainer. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the dismissal motion. This appellate decision affirms that denial, concluding that res judicata does not apply because the parties and claims in the federal and state actions were not identical, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the contract claims against the Legal Services Fund.

Breach of ContractRes JudicataClaim PreclusionFederal Court JurisdictionState Court ActionDismissalAppellate ReviewCivil Rights (42 USC § 1983)Legal ServicesLaw Firm Retainer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Niezbecki v. Eisner & Hubbard, P. C.

Plaintiff Tadeusz Niezbecki sued the law firm Eisner & Hubbard, P. C. for fraud and malpractice. Niezbecki alleged that the firm, representing his union, negligently withdrew his layoff grievance before the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) without his knowledge or consent, causing him to lose his case. The defendant moved for summary judgment. The court granted the motion, ruling that Niezbecki's state law claims for malpractice and misrepresentation are preempted by federal labor law, as they are substantially dependent on the terms of a collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, federal law grants union counsel immunity from such personal liability, and the plaintiff's allegations did not meet the 'arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith' standard required for a breach of the duty of fair representation claim against the union.

PreemptionLabor LawMalpracticeFraudCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProceedingsNational Labor Relations BoardUnion RepresentationSummary JudgmentFederal Law
References
36
Showing 1-10 of 16,059 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