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. No. 44
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2022

The People v. Marc Mitchell

Marc Mitchell, the defendant, appealed his conviction for fraudulent accosting, arguing that the term 'accost' requires a physical, aggressive approach to a specific individual. The New York Court of Appeals rejected this narrow interpretation, stating that dictionaries from the statute's enactment defined 'accost' as 'to approach,' 'speak to first,' or 'address.' The Court found the complaint sufficient, as Mitchell blocked a Manhattan sidewalk with milk crates, requiring pedestrians to walk around him, and asked passing pedestrians to 'Help the homeless,' while allegedly misrepresenting where donations would go. The Court concluded that his actions, including blocking the sidewalk and calling out, constituted accosting. The dissenting opinion argued that the majority's interpretation was too broad, potentially criminalizing protected speech, and that 'accost' implies a more assertive, targeted contact, which was not present in Mitchell's actions. The Appellate Term's order was affirmed.

fraudulent accostingstatutory interpretationNew York Court of Appealsmisdemeanor complaintfacial sufficiencyactus reusmens reaconfidence gamestreet swindlelegislative intent
References
58
Case No. 533132
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

In the Matter of the Claim of Frederick Mitchell

Claimant Frederick Mitchell, a certified welder, sustained work-related injuries in two incidents in 2003 and 2004, leading to established workers' compensation claims. Initially found to be permanently partially disabled, Mitchell sought reclassification as permanently totally disabled. However, he was later disqualified from receiving benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a due to misrepresentations about his condition, based on surveillance video evidence. Years later, Mitchell applied to the Workers' Compensation Board to rehear or reopen his claims, citing newly discovered evidence and the interest of justice. The Board denied his application, a decision affirmed by the Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationPermanent Partial DisabilityPermanent Total DisabilityMisrepresentation of ConditionSurveillance Video EvidenceRehearing ApplicationReopening ClaimsAbuse of DiscretionWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-aNewly Discovered Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01365 [203 AD3d 1288]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 03, 2022

Matter of Mitchell v. Wastequip, Inc.

Claimant Frederick Mitchell appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying his application to rehear or reopen his workers' compensation claims. Mitchell was previously found permanently disqualified from receiving benefits due to misrepresentations about his condition, supported by surveillance video. He sought to reopen the case based on newly discovered evidence and in the interest of justice, over seven years after the initial disqualification. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial, concluding that Mitchell failed to provide valid newly discovered evidence supported by affidavits and offered no compelling reason for the significant delay in his application. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationPermanent DisabilityMisrepresentationSurveillance VideoRehearingReopeningAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionNewly Discovered Evidence
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06839 [165 AD3d 1360]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 11, 2018

Matter of Mitchell v. Eaton's Trucking Serv., Inc.

Claimant James Mitchell, a tractor truck driver, filed a workers' compensation claim for injuries to his right hand, wrist, arm, and shoulder, identifying both Eaton's Trucking Service, Inc. (Eaton) and Quality Carrier's, Inc. (Quality) as his employers. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Eaton was Mitchell's general employer and Quality was his special employer, making both 50% liable for benefits. Quality appealed this decision, challenging the special employment finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's determination, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that Mitchell was a special employee of Quality, considering factors such as control over work, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, and the nature of the work arrangement between Eaton and Quality.

Workers' Compensation LawSpecial EmploymentGeneral EmploymentEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceTractor Truck DriverOccupational DiseaseCarpal Tunnel SyndromeEmployer-Employee Relationship
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

Mitchell v. SUNY Upstate Medical University

Plaintiff Robbie Mitchell sued SUNY Upstate Medical Center for alleged Title VII violations, including race discrimination and retaliation, after experiencing a series of adverse employment actions. These actions included reassignment, disciplinary notices (NODs), a mandatory medical examination, a formal counseling memorandum, a verbal dispute, and eventual termination. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for most claims and that their actions were based on legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The court granted summary judgment in favor of SUNY Upstate Medical Center, concluding that the plaintiff failed to provide sufficient evidence of discrimination or that retaliation was the but-for cause of the challenged employment actions, and consequently, the case was closed.

Title VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkWorkplace ConductDisciplinary ActionPaid Administrative Leave
References
49
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 06700
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2025

Mitchell v. City of New York

Brian E. Mitchell, a dock builder, sustained personal injuries while removing floating dock sections for dredging in Flushing Bay, alleging he lost balance on an unsecured finger pier. He initiated an action against the City of New York, citing violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims but denied it for Labor Law § 240 (1). On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed, holding that the condition under Labor Law § 200 was open and obvious, and the Industrial Code provisions for Labor Law § 241 (6) were inapplicable. The court found remaining triable issues of fact concerning the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to contradictory testimony regarding supervisory instructions.

Dock Builder InjuryFloating Pier AccidentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewWorkplace SafetyElevation-Related RiskIndustrial Code Violations
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gilman Brothers Inc. v. Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co.

The plaintiff, Gilman Brothers Inc., sued Peat, Marwick, Mitchell & Co. (PMM) and individual defendants Burrows and McLaughlin for federal securities law violations and common law claims. The plaintiff alleged that PMM aided and abetted a scheme to defraud Gilman Brothers Inc. during its purchase of a majority stock interest in Systems for Advanced Information Inc. PMM moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were time-barred under Massachusetts' statute of limitations. The court applied the two-year Massachusetts statute of limitations, finding the cause of action arose in April 1972. Although a federal tolling doctrine applied, the discovery of the fraud in July 1975 initiated the two-year period, rendering the December 1977 action untimely. Consequently, the court granted PMM's motion to dismiss the securities fraud claims and also dismissed the state common law claims.

Securities FraudStatute of LimitationsFederal Tolling DoctrineMassachusetts LawAccounting ServicesAiding and AbettingStock PurchaseMotion to DismissCommon Law ClaimsFinancial Statements
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 2005

Mitchell v. Fishbein

Stephen Mitchell, an African-American attorney, sued members of the New York County Assigned Counsel Plan's Screening Committee, alleging racial discrimination and retaliation after his application for recertification to the 18-B Panel was denied. He sought to compel production of documents related to his own recertification and those of other attorneys, including the identities of judges and lawyers who provided comments. The defendants cross-moved for a protective order, claiming confidentiality and privilege. The court granted in part and denied in part both motions, ordering the disclosure of comments about Mitchell but redacting evaluator identities, and allowing discovery of other attorneys' recertification documents under a protective order, finding them relevant to Mitchell's discrimination claims.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliation ClaimAttorney RecertificationAssigned Counsel PlanDiscovery DisputeProtective OrderConfidentiality PrivilegeDeliberative Process PrivilegeSelf-Critical Analysis PrivilegeFederal Civil Procedure
References
57
Case No. 96 Civ. 0095
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 01, 1997

Mitchell v. Fab Industries, Inc.

Plaintiff Roszines Mitchell sued her former employer, Fab Industries, Inc., and three supervisors for employment discrimination based on sex and religion, and retaliatory discharge under Title VII. Defendants moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. The court granted summary judgment for the individual defendants, dismissing claims against them as a matter of law. It also found the April 1991 statue incident claim time-barred. However, the court denied summary judgment regarding Mitchell's claims of sexual and religious discrimination, concluding she established a prima facie case of a hostile work environment, and also denied summary judgment on the retaliatory discharge claim, finding a causal connection between her protected activity and termination.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentReligious DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentIndividual LiabilityStatute of LimitationsPrima Facie Case
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Nanterne v. Ahdoot

Claimant sustained a work-related injury in 2002. As the employers, Shahla Ahdoot and Mitchel Ahdoot, were uninsured, the Uninsured Employers Fund (UEF) paid benefits and sought reimbursement. In 2012, claimant and UEF reached a settlement agreement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 32 for $45,000, releasing UEF and the uninsured employers from liability. The Workers’ Compensation Board approved this agreement. The uninsured employers later sought to rescind the agreement, arguing lack of consent, but the Board denied their request, stating their consent was not required. The uninsured employers appealed this denial. The Appellate Court affirmed the Board’s decision, citing its lack of authority to review a waiver agreement once approved by the Board, and noted that the employers had not appealed an earlier determination regarding Mitchel Ahdoot's employer status.

Workers' Compensation LawSettlement AgreementUninsured Employers FundRescission of AgreementAppellate ReviewBoard ApprovalEmployer ConsentWaiver AgreementLiability ReleaseWork-Related Injury
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 67 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