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 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

Friedman v. Allstate Ins. Co.

This case involves an appeal from a Civil Court judgment that awarded the plaintiff, Paul Friedman, L.Ac., LMT, the principal sum of $2,160 for assigned first-party no-fault benefits for acupuncture services. The defendant, Allstate Insurance Company, denied the claims based on an independent medical examination (IME) by Dr. Chiu, which concluded that the assignor's injuries had resolved. However, the plaintiff's expert, Dr. Friedman, testified that further treatment was necessary. The Civil Court found the services medically necessary, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the plaintiff met its burden of demonstrating medical necessity.

AcupunctureMedical NecessityNo-Fault BenefitsIMEAssignorProvider ActionCivil Court AppealExpert TestimonyInsurance Denial
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07932 [144 AD3d 993]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 23, 2016

Markowits v. Friedman

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Supreme Court order in a case involving a dispute over the sale of interests in home health care companies. Plaintiffs, Sara and Alexander Markowits and their companies, alleged breach of contract and fraudulent inducement, claiming the Friedmans concealed pending actions and investigations. The Supreme Court had granted summary judgment to some defendants, dismissed parts of the complaint, and compelled arbitration. The Appellate Division upheld this decision, finding the defendants proved their entitlement to judgment, proposed amendments lacked merit due to no fiduciary duty for fraudulent concealment or aiding and abetting, and the arbitration agreement was valid despite fraud claims related to the broader contract.

Contract DisputeFraudulent InducementSummary JudgmentArbitration AgreementFiduciary DutyAiding and AbettingAppellate ReviewBusiness SaleEmployment LawConfidentiality Agreements
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 22, 1994

In re Friedman

Theodore H. Friedman, an attorney, faced 23 charges of professional misconduct, stemming from his representation in three personal injury cases, including Mowen v Yangming Mar. Transp. Corp. and Estate of Krieger v City of New York. A Special Referee sustained 14 charges, encompassing making false statements under oath, soliciting false testimony, failing to supervise his investigator, and fee splitting with a nonlawyer. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee petitioned for a severe sanction, while Friedman sought dismissal or censure. The First Judicial Department confirmed the sustained charges, disaffirmed the recommended two-year suspension, and ordered Friedman's disbarment, citing a pattern of intentional dishonesty and contempt for the legal process. The disbarment was effective April 22, 1994.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethicsFalse testimonyDisbarmentPerjuryFee splittingWitness tamperingDisciplinary rulesNew York State BarAppellate Division
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2013

A.X.M.S. Corp. v. Friedman

This Memorandum Decision & Order addresses a motion for preliminary injunctive relief filed by A.X.M.S. Corp. (AXMS) against Marvin Friedman, Joyce Friedman, James Dong, and Masterpiece Leather Works, Ltd. The dispute stems from a declared "deadlock" within Masterpiece Leather Works' board of directors concerning two major policy issues: the restructuring of Masterpiece and its Chinese manufacturing partner, Artisan, to address Chinese transfer pricing/tax concerns, and the approval of the annual budget, specifically executive salaries for Friedman and Dong. AXMS sought a declaration that the deadlock was invalid and an injunction to prevent post-deadlock activities. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, finding that AXMS failed to demonstrate a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the improper declaration of a deadlock on either issue, and also failed to prove irreparable harm, noting that any alleged harm could be remedied by monetary damages. AXMS had previously elected to purchase Friedman and Dong’s interests in Masterpiece for $12 million.

Corporate governanceShareholder disputeBoard deadlockPreliminary injunctionContract interpretationGood faithIrreparable harmCorporate restructuringTransfer pricingTax compliance
References
32
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 01740 [214 AD3d 590]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 30, 2023

Galicia v. Asrar

Lucio Galicia, injured in an accident, received workers' compensation benefits from Tower Insurance Company. Defendant tendered a settlement offer of $25,000. Galicia's attorney, Friedman, was to receive $8,333, and Tower the remainder, but Galicia declined the settlement. Tower intervened to protect its lien. Friedman moved for discharge and a charging lien of $8,333.33, representing his share of the rejected settlement. The Supreme Court granted Friedman's motion for a charging lien. The Appellate Division reversed this order, stating the motion court erred as the sum never attached to a settlement or judgment. The court also noted it was unclear how much work Friedman did or the amount of recovery. Tower was not estopped from opposing Friedman's claim as its position was consistent and it received no benefit from its prior position.

Charging LienWorkers' Compensation BenefitsAttorney FeesEquitable ApportionmentSettlement RejectionIntervenorQuantum MeruitStatutory LienAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ1511657
Regular
Apr 09, 2012

LESTER GUERRERO vs. DUANE WHITE, INTERINSURANCE EXCHANGE OF THE AUTOMOBILE CLUB OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, CORVEL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) rescinded a prior finding that Lester Guerrero was an employee of Duane White. The WCAB determined that Guerrero's drywall and painting work, performed for less than 52 hours, constituted activities incidental to the ownership, maintenance, and use of a dwelling. Therefore, Guerrero is excluded from workers' compensation coverage under Labor Code section 3352(h).

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code section 3351(d)Labor Code section 3352(h)incidental to dwelling ownershipresidential remodelingcasual or minor activityhomeowner exclusionscope of employmentemployee statusfinding of fact
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Giant Group, Ltd. v. Sands

This case concerns a securities fraud action brought by Giant Group, Ltd. against accounting firms Arthur Anderson LLP, Friedman Alpren & Green LLP, and individual Glenn Sands, along with investment bank L.H. Friend. Giant alleged that the defendants made false and misleading representations and failed to disclose material information regarding fraudulent schemes by Sands at Periscope Sportswear, Inc., which Giant acquired for $85 million. The defendants moved to dismiss, asserting that Giant's federal securities fraud claims were barred by the one-year statute of limitations under Rule 10b-5. The court found that Giant had received sufficient "storm warnings" and inquiry notice regarding Sands' misconduct, including prebilling and improper expense charges, more than a year before filing its complaint. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motions, dismissing the federal securities claim as time-barred and declining supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsInquiry NoticeMotion to DismissRule 10b-5Auditor IndependencePleading FraudPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActGAAP ViolationsPre-billing
References
59
Case No. ADJ4615568 (MON 0293691)
Regular
Dec 01, 2014

EXELANI YOUNG vs. FEDERAL EXPRESS, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) order dismisses a petition for reconsideration filed by attorney Lester J. Friedman. The dismissal is based on the finding that the petition is moot because an Amended Order Approving Compromise and Release and Award, issued by the WCJ, preserved the petitioner's right to attorney's fees. Therefore, the petitioner is not currently aggrieved by the WCAB's decision.

Petition for ReconsiderationMootCompromise and ReleaseAwardAttorney's FeesAggrievedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJFederal ExpressSedgwick Claims Management Services
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 69 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