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
Mar 26, 1971

Maurizio v. Hoberman

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 26, 1971, concerning the rating examination papers of civil service workers. The initial judgment confirmed a Special Referee's report but was subsequently modified. The modification involved remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, with the judgment then affirmed as modified. The court underscored that the duty to establish requirements for promotional examinations lies solely with the respondents, and judicial interference is unwarranted if exercised fairly. Although the respondents did not participate in the appeal, implying agreement with the Special Term's views, the courts reaffirmed their inability to assume the respondents' powers or duties.

Civil ServicePromotional ExaminationExamination PapersJudicial ReviewRemandSupreme CourtReferee ReportAdministrative DiscretionJudicial RestraintNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Rycoline Products, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order from December 20, 1996, which denied the defendant-appellant's motion to reject a Special Referee’s report and for a protective order, confirming the report and directing the production of certain records. Additionally, the court modified an order from February 28, 1997, to grant the defendant-appellant 45 days to comply with the directive, specifically for the production of redacted employee worker compensation records. The court found that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Referee’s report.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderSpecial RefereeWorkers' Compensation RecordsCompliance ExtensionJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewMotion DenialRecord Production
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Barto

The defendant was convicted after a jury trial in Seneca County Court for insurance fraud in the third degree, falsifying business records in the first degree, defrauding the government, and falsely reporting an incident in the third degree. The charges arose from the defendant, an acting Village Justice, falsely reporting an assault to police, allegedly to obtain prescription pain medication. Medical evidence presented by the prosecution, including the absence of injuries despite extensive testing, contradicted the defendant's account of being strangled and struck. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the judgment, rejecting the defendant's contentions regarding the legal sufficiency and weight of the evidence. The court found that the jury could reasonably conclude the defendant falsely reported the incident and caused a false workers' compensation form to be filed. The appellate court also found no reason to modify the sentence despite improper prosecutorial statements.

Insurance FraudFalsifying Business RecordsDefrauding GovernmentFalse ReportingAssault ClaimMedical EvidenceLegal SufficiencyWeight of EvidenceWorkers' CompensationJury Trial
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Malecki v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

Paul E. Malecki, an ironworker, was injured when a 2,000-pound bundle of steel fell onto his foot. He filed claims under Labor Law §§ 240 (1), 200 (1), and common-law negligence against The Pike Company, Inc., the general contractor, and other defendants. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, but denied dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action. The court also denied conditional summary judgment on Pike’s common-law indemnification claim against Niagara Erecting but properly denied conditional summary judgment on Pike's contractual indemnification claim. The appeals court modified the order, affirming the dismissal of the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and further ruled that the Labor Law § 200 (1) claim and common-law negligence cause of action should also be dismissed, and conditional summary judgment for common-law indemnification against Niagara Erecting should have been granted to Pike. The order was modified accordingly and affirmed.

Ironworker InjuryForklift AccidentConstruction Site SafetyElevation RisksCommon-Law NegligenceIndemnification ClaimGeneral Contractor LiabilitySubcontractor NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1964

Beirne v. Habel

The court considered two orders. An order entered on February 14, 1964, was unanimously affirmed without costs. Another order entered on February 27, 1964, which denied a motion to vacate a prior order appointing a receiver, was unanimously modified. The modification was made on legal and factual grounds, and in the exercise of discretion, to terminate the receivership upon the plaintiffs-appellants paying the receiver $100 plus actual expenses, including bond premium. The initial appointment of the receiver was deemed justified due to the parties' agreement in open court. However, the litigation settled and was discontinued within a week of the appointment, and the receiver reportedly did not take possession, receive funds, or perform significant services beyond qualifying.

receivershipmotion to vacatesettlementdiscontinuanceappellate decisionjudicial discretioncourt ordersexpensesbond premiumagreement in court
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 1995

Elson v. Consolidated Edison Co.

Plaintiff, who suffered from a known psychological condition, brought an action against defendant Con Edison and its security officers. The plaintiff alleged intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligence, and false imprisonment following an eight-hour threatening interrogation by security personnel investigating drug use. During the interrogation, the plaintiff was reportedly shown a gun, denied legal counsel and lunch, and coerced into a home search and lie detector test. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims. However, the appellate court modified this decision, reinstating the cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress, determining that the alleged conduct could constitute extreme and outrageous behavior and was not barred by Workers' Compensation Law as an intentional tort. The claims for negligence and false imprisonment remained dismissed.

Intentional Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary Judgment MotionWorkers' Compensation BarWorkplace InterrogationEmployer LiabilityPsychological HarmAppellate ReviewTort LawCon EdisonFalse Imprisonment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1965

Rivera v. Hellman

This case involves a motion to confirm a Special Referee's report concerning the amounts and priorities of various liens. The Special Referee conducted a hearing and reported on claims from an attorney for the plaintiff ($793.50), Roosevelt Hospital ($846.53), and the Millinery Health Fund ($641.00, later adjusted to $528). The report established the amounts of each lien and recommended priorities, placing the attorney's lien first, followed by the hospital lien (except for a $12 outpatient service), and then the compensation lien. The court concurred with the Special Referee's report and recommendations, granting the motion to confirm.

Lien PriorityAttorney's LienHospital LienDisability BenefitsWorkmen's Compensation LawSpecial Referee ReportMotion GrantedNew York Supreme CourtLien LawMotion Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colindres v. Carpenito

Plaintiff Rochelle Colindres sought a protective order to deny defendants' demand for a medical report from her former treating psychologist, Diane Henry, or alternatively, relief from compliance with Uniform Rules for Trial Courts § 202.17(b)(1). Colindres argued that the defendants waived their right to the report as the independent medical examination (IME) already occurred, and that obtaining the report would be an undue hardship since Henry ceased treatment due to Colindres' attendance issues. Defendants Mario Carpenito, Jr., City of White Plains, and White Plains Parking Department opposed, asserting that the report was necessary to clarify alleged injuries, prepare for cross-examination, and facilitate settlement, highlighting Colindres' complex medical history predating the incident. The court denied both branches of Colindres' motion, finding that the rule applies broadly to personal injury actions, defendants did not waive their entitlement, and Colindres failed to prove it was impossible to obtain the report. The court ordered Colindres to exchange a compliant medical report from Diane Henry by March 27, 2017.

protective ordermedical report disclosurediscovery disputepsychological treatmentindependent medical examinationCPLR 310322 NYCRR 202.17waiver of discoveryundue hardshippersonal injury damages
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2011

Battle v. Thomson

This case concerns an appeal by a mother from an order of the Family Court, Queens County, dated October 24, 2011, which dismissed her petition to modify a previous custody and visitation order from July 22, 2010. The mother contended that the dismissal was erroneous as it occurred without a full hearing and without considering reports from a therapeutic social worker. However, the appellate court dismissed the mother's appeal as academic. This decision was based on a prior ruling in Matter of Thomson v Battle, which had already reversed the July 22, 2010, order and remitted the matter for a new hearing in the Family Court, Queens County, thereby rendering the mother's current appeal moot.

Family LawCustody DisputeVisitation RightsAppellate ReviewAcademic AppealMootnessOrder ModificationJudicial ReviewFamily CourtQueens County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chaplin v. Pathmark Supermarkets

This case addresses a motion by defendants, including Supermarkets General Corp., for a protective order to vacate the plaintiff Mimi Chaplin's notice for discovery and inspection of accident reports. Mimi Chaplin sought these reports after sustaining personal injuries from a fall at the defendant's premises. The court, presided over by Justice James F. Niehoff, analyzed the newly enacted CPLR 3101 (g), which mandates full disclosure of accident reports prepared in the regular course of business. The court found that the accident report in question was prepared in Supermarkets General Corp.'s regular course of business, rendering it discoverable regardless of its potential use in litigation, thus denying the defendants' motion.

DiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsCPLR 3101(g)Litigation PreparationRegular Course of BusinessPersonal InjuryNegligenceDisclosureEvidence
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 7,154 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