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

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Co. v. Pender

This case involves a subrogation action initiated by an unnamed plaintiff (subrogee) to recover $15,200 in additional personal injury protection (APIP) benefits paid to its subrogor, Darci Plumbing Co., Inc., for an employee, Kareem Atkins. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint based on documentary evidence, collateral estoppel, and res judicata, arguing that a prior Workers’ Compensation Board decision from November 24, 2008, which awarded Atkins basic economic loss benefits, was determinative. The plaintiff cross-moved for sanctions. The court found that APIP benefits, defined by 11 NYCRR 65-1.3, are distinct from statutory basic economic loss benefits and that an insured's subrogation rights for APIP are equitable, existing under common law. Therefore, the workers' compensation award was not res judicata, and the plaintiff was not precluded from asserting its subrogation rights for amounts paid in addition to the statutory basic economic loss. Consequently, the defendants' motion to dismiss was denied, and the plaintiff's cross-motion for sanctions was also denied.

SubrogationAPIP BenefitsPersonal Injury ProtectionWorkers' CompensationCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataMotion to DismissSanctionsNo-Fault LawInsurance Law
References
1
Case No. 01 CR 1121
Regular Panel Decision

Albanese v. United States

Elio Albanese, who pled guilty to conspiracy to commit robbery, filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 to correct his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel. He claimed his attorney advised him to accept a plea agreement with a stipulated loss amount and failed to file a timely appeal regarding his Criminal History Category. The Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, denied the motion. The decision found that Albanese knowingly and voluntarily accepted the plea, and his claims of ineffective assistance regarding the loss amount were not supported by evidence or prejudice. Furthermore, his attorney affirmed that Albanese never instructed her to file an appeal.

Ineffective Assistance of Counsel28 U.S.C. § 2255Plea AgreementSentencing GuidelinesCriminal History CategoryHobbs Act RobberyConspiracySecond Circuit RemandFederal Rules of Criminal ProcedureStipulated Loss Amount
References
39
Case No. Dkt. No. 830
Regular Panel Decision

Ajemian v. United States

Petitioner Peter Ajemian filed a pro se motion under 28 U.S.C. Section 2255 to vacate, set aside, or correct his conviction and sentence related to a fraud scheme involving the Long Island Railroad and federal disability benefits. Ajemian argued actual innocence, ineffective assistance of counsel, that his plea agreement was negotiated in bad faith or under duress, and that his sentence calculation was erroneous due to newly discovered evidence. The court largely denied Ajemian's claims as time-barred or waived by his plea agreement. However, the court found "substantial questions" regarding the amount of loss suffered by the LIRR in light of alleged newly discovered evidence. Consequently, the motion was denied in part, and a hearing was ordered to address the issue of resentencing based on loss calculation.

Habeas Corpus28 U.S.C. Section 2255Ineffective Assistance of CounselActual InnocencePlea Agreement WaiverSentence CalculationFraud SchemeRailroad Retirement BoardPost-Conviction ReliefResentencing Hearing
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Von Maack v. Wyckoff Heights Medical Center

This document addresses a procedural matter where a motion for reargument of a previous motion for leave to appeal was considered by the court. The outcome of this specific motion was a denial. Notably, Judge Feinman indicated that he took no part in the decision-making process for this particular motion. The text also references a prior related case decided in 2017.

ReargumentLeave to AppealMotion DeniedAppellate ProcedureRecusal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pom Wonderful LLC v. Organic Juice USA, Inc.

Plaintiff POM Wonderful LLC ("Pom") and defendant Organic Juice, Inc. ("Organic Juice") are competing purveyors of bottled pomegranate juice involved in a dispute over false advertising and deceptive marketing practices. Pom initiated the lawsuit, alleging Organic Juice violated federal and state laws by selling "adulterated" juice falsely labeled as "100% pure." Organic Juice counterclaimed, accusing Pom of deceptively marketing its juice made from concentrate and making unsubstantiated health claims, even adding elderberry juice concentrate from 2002 to 2008. The court considered three motions: Pom's motion for summary judgment on Organic Juice's counterclaims, Organic Juice's motion for partial summary judgment on the same, and Pom's motion to dismiss Organic Juice's amended counterclaims. The court denied all three motions, finding that despite alleged methodological flaws, consumer surveys demonstrating potential confusion regarding Pom's advertisements were admissible. Furthermore, the court ordered Pom to pay Organic Juice's costs and attorney's fees related to the motion to dismiss, deeming that particular motion frivolous.

False AdvertisingLanham ActSummary JudgmentConsumer ConfusionSurvey EvidenceBrand MarketingJuice LabelingConcentrateElderberryHealth Claims
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Francis v. Jewelry Box Corp. of America

This document concerns a motion for reargument of a motion for leave to appeal. The motion was denied. The decision references an earlier case cited as 26 NY3d 981 from 2015. It is noted that Chief Judge DiFiore and Judge Garcia did not participate in this ruling.

Motion for ReargumentLeave to AppealDenied MotionAppellate ProcedureJudicial Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. New York City Transit Authority

The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.

Leave to appealAppellate DivisionMotion to vacateCourt of AppealsDismissedFinal determinationConstitutional interpretationMotion denied
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dominguez v. Fixrammer Corp.

Plaintiff Hippolito Dominguez sued to recover for injuries sustained while operating a power stud gun for his employer, Creative Structures, Inc., which resulted in the loss of a testicle. The jury awarded $800,000, apportioning liability: 25% to Creative Structures, 40% to the manufacturer Fixrammer Corporation, and 35% to the distributor Barnett Lighting Corporation. The employer settled for $310,000, and the manufacturer dissolved before trial. The plaintiff moved to increase Barnett Lighting Corporation's liability, arguing an inability to enforce judgment against the dissolved manufacturer. The court denied this motion, applying CPLR 1601 and General Obligations Law § 15-108 to limit the distributor's liability for noneconomic damages to its equitable share. The court also denied plaintiff's motion to increase the award for future pain and suffering and the distributor's cross-motion to set aside the verdict. Final judgments were entered against Barnett Lighting Corporation for $308,952 and against Fixrammer Corporation for $343,435.

Joint TortfeasorsLimited LiabilityEquitable ShareSettlement SetoffNoneconomic DamagesEconomic DamagesVerdict RestructuringPost-Trial MotionProduct LiabilityPersonal Injury
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kurz v. St. Francis Hospital

The defendants moved to preclude plaintiffs' expert testimony on causation or, alternatively, for a pretrial hearing regarding the plaintiff's vision loss. The plaintiff developed visual disturbances shortly after receiving Amiodarone intravenously following cardiac bypass surgery in 2008. Defendants argued a lack of scientific evidence linking short-term Amiodarone use to optic neuropathy, while the plaintiff's expert contended that rapid drug absorption could cause optic disc edema, a known side effect. Furthermore, the plaintiff highlighted medical records where defendant physicians themselves initially attributed the vision loss to the medication. The court, applying the Frye standard, determined that general causation—Amiodarone causing vision loss—is an established medical theory. It further ruled that the specific causation tests from Parker and Cornell, typically applied to toxic tort cases, were not strictly applicable here due to the distinct nature of medical malpractice. Consequently, the court denied the defendants' motion, finding an adequate foundation for the admissibility of the plaintiff's expert testimony, with any disputes regarding specific timing affecting only the weight of the evidence, not its admissibility.

Medical MalpracticeExpert TestimonyCausationAmiodaroneOptic NeuropathyVision LossMotion in LimineFrye StandardParker StandardCornell Standard
References
9
Case No. CPL article 440 motion
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2011

People v. G.M.

Defendant G.M. moved to vacate six convictions—two for prostitution, two for criminal trespass, and two for drug possession—which occurred between September 1997 and January 1998. G.M. contended she was a victim of human trafficking and severe domestic abuse by her husband, D.S., who forced her into illegal activities under threat of violence. The New York State Legislature amended Criminal Procedure Law § 440.10 in August 2010, allowing sex trafficking victims to vacate prostitution-related convictions. The Queens County District Attorney's Office consented to G.M.'s motion for all six convictions, citing her truthful affidavit and the unique circumstances. On April 1, 2011, the court granted the motion, vacating all judgments of conviction and dismissing the accusatory instruments, recognizing G.M.'s status as a trafficking victim, which was also recognized by a federal agency that granted her a 'T Visa'.

Human TraffickingSex TraffickingVacatur of ConvictionsCriminal Procedure Law § 440.10Prostitution OffensesCriminal TrespassDrug PossessionDomestic ViolenceCoercionAbuse
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 10,738 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