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. Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 20, 2014

In re Residential Capital, LLC

Caren Wilson filed claims (Claim Nos. 4754 and 7181) asserting secured and unsecured claims against Residential Capital, LLC. The ResCap Borrower Claims Trust objected, arguing the claims were barred by res judicata due to a prior dismissal with prejudice of a related federal action, or were improperly amended/late-filed. The Court applied federal res judicata law, finding that Wilson's claims arise from the same nucleus of facts as the previously dismissed Federal Action. Additionally, Claim No. 7181 was deemed either barred by res judicata or late-filed, and both claims failed to meet pleading standards for RICO and fraud. The Court sustained the Trust's objection, expunging both of Wilson's claims, but modified the automatic stay to allow Wilson to challenge the prior dismissal order in the Virginia District Court.

BankruptcyRes JudicataClaim ObjectionExpungementFailure to ProsecuteRule 41(b) DismissalRICOFraudDebtor-CreditorMortgage Securitization
References
45
Case No. 13-ev-3288; 13-cv-4244
Regular Panel Decision

Alzheimer's Disease Resource Center, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This case involves two related lawsuits stemming from the disaffiliation of the Alzheimer’s Disease Resource Center, Inc. (ADRC) from the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the Association). In case 13-ev-3288, ADRC alleged unfair competition, false advertising, and other claims. The Court denied dismissal for false advertising under the Lanham Act, New York General Business Law § 349, and unjust enrichment, but granted dismissal for trademark infringement, common law unfair competition, UCC violations, conversion, tortious interference, and fraud. In case 13-cv-4244, ADRC alleged breach of contract and misappropriation of trade secrets related to donor lists. The Court granted the Association's motion to dismiss this complaint in its entirety. Punitive damages were stricken for Lanham Act and unjust enrichment claims.

Unfair CompetitionLanham ActFalse AdvertisingTrademark InfringementNew York General Business Law § 349Unjust EnrichmentMotion to DismissBreach of ContractTrade Secret MisappropriationConversion
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2014

Hairston v. Commissioner of Social Security

Denise M. Hairston, on behalf of her minor daughter S.N., sought judicial review of a final decision by the Commissioner of the Social Security Administration, which denied S.N.'s application for Supplemental Security Income (SSI) benefits. S.N. alleged disability due to various impairments, including migraine headaches, obesity, impulse control disorder NOS, and depressive disorder NOS, leading to functional limitations. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that S.N.'s impairments were severe but did not meet or medically equal a listed impairment, and functionally equaled only a "marked" limitation in the "caring for yourself" domain, thus denying benefits. The United States Magistrate Judge Frank Maas denied the Commissioner's motion for judgment on the pleadings, concluding that the ALJ's finding regarding S.N.'s health and physical well-being domain did not withstand scrutiny and required further fact-finding regarding the frequency and intensity of her migraines. The case was remanded to the Commissioner for further proceedings, including obtaining additional school and medical records, and ensuring the claimant's understanding and waiver of the right to counsel.

Social Security BenefitsSupplemental Security Income (SSI)Child DisabilityDepressive Disorder NOSMigraine DisorderObesityFunctional ImpairmentAdministrative Law Judge (ALJ)Judicial ReviewRemand Order
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Ashley L.

The respondent, mother of Ashley L., appealed a Family Court order from Clinton County, entered December 30, 2004, which terminated her parental rights based on mental illness under Social Services Law § 384-b. The petitioner, a social services agency, initiated the proceeding after Ashley was taken into protective custody at birth due to the mother's extensive mental illness history. Licensed psychologist Richard Liotta and psychiatrist Bruce Kokernot testified about the respondent's mental health conditions, including major depressive disorder, mood disorder, and personality disorder, opining she was unable to provide adequate care and likely to relapse. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding sufficient proof of mental illness and rejecting claims of an unfair hearing and ineffective assistance of counsel.

Parental rights terminationMental illnessChild welfareSocial Services Law § 384-bPsychological evaluationPsychiatric diagnosisRelapse riskIneffective assistance of counselAppellate reviewFamily Court decision
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tupper v. City of Syracuse

This appeal originated from a Supreme Court judgment in Onondaga County, entered July 19, 2006, which had annulled City of Syracuse General Ordinance Nos. 46 and 49 of 2005. The initial CPLR article 78 proceeding was based on the contention that the City of Syracuse failed to conduct a proper State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review prior to enacting the ordinances. The appellate court converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action, deeming it the correct procedural vehicle for challenging a legislative act. Upon review of the merits, the court reversed the lower court's judgment. It determined that the ordinances' enactment did not affect the environment within the scope of SEQRA, as they did not impact the physical environment, population patterns, or existing community character. Therefore, the appellate court declared City of Syracuse General Ordinance Nos. 46 and 49 of 2005 to be valid.

AppealDeclaratory JudgmentSEQRAEnvironmental ReviewOrdinancesValidityCPLR Article 78Onondaga CountyZoningProperty Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 1996

Claim of Palevsky v. New York City Board of Education

In 1986, while working as an education associate in the Bronx, the claimant sustained a fractured nose due to a student altercation and filed a timely workers' compensation claim, receiving benefits. The case remained open for a pending nasal surgery issue. Years later, in 1992, the claimant sought compensation for alleged consequential posttraumatic stress disorder. The self-insured employer, the New York City Board of Education, argued that Workers' Compensation Law § 28, a two-year statute of limitations, barred this new claim. However, both the Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board affirmed that Section 28 does not apply to consequential injuries. Upon appeal, the Court concurred, holding that a subsequent claim for disability compensation related to injuries in an earlier, timely claim is not barred by the two-year limit for amendment.

Workers' CompensationPosttraumatic Stress DisorderStatute of LimitationsConsequential InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law § 28Time BarBoard DecisionAppealWorkplace InjuryNasal Fracture
References
3
Case No. 10 Civ. 3314; 10 Civ. 5013
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2010

Alzheimer's Foundation of America, Inc. v. Alzheimer's Disease & Related Disorders Ass'n

This consolidated opinion addresses dueling motions to dismiss in two civil actions involving the Alzheimer’s Foundation of Americas, Inc. (the "Foundation") and the Alzheimer’s Disease and Related Disorders Association (the "Association"). The Foundation initiated a lawsuit alleging misrepresentation, trademark dilution, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, conspiracy, conversion, and UCC violations against the Association and Northern Trust. Conversely, the Association filed its own complaint asserting claims of trademark infringement, libel, injurious falsehood, false designation, dilution, fraud, tortious interference, injury to business reputation, unfair competition, unjust enrichment, and conspiracy against the Foundation and several individuals. The court denied motions to dismiss the Lanham Act, dilution, and unfair competition claims for both parties, but granted motions to dismiss the UCC, conversion, libel, unjust enrichment, and fraud claims, including all claims against Northern Trust. Leave to amend the complaints was granted.

Trademark InfringementUnfair CompetitionLanham ActDilutionUnjust EnrichmentConversionFraudCollateral EstoppelMotion to DismissRule 12(b)(6)
References
59
Case No. 2019-03475; Docket Nos. B-762-18, B-763-18, B-764-18, B-765-18
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Matter of Margaret K.K. (Alicia A.)

Alicia A. (mother) appealed the Family Court of Rockland County's order terminating her parental rights to her four children due to mental illness. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning two children (William K. and Margaret K. K.) as academic because they had reached the age of majority. For the remaining children, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother's mental illnesses (bipolar disorder, ADHD, and PTSD) rendered her unable to provide proper care. The court also determined that the mother received effective assistance of counsel, despite counsel not attending a court-ordered psychological examination, given counsel's detailed cross-examination of the evaluator and securing an independent psychiatric evaluation. The decision upheld the termination of parental rights for the children still under the court's jurisdiction.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness GroundIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSocial Services Law § 384-bFamily Court ActChild NeglectBipolar DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAttention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benzon v. Sosa

This case concerns an appeal from a Family Court order that granted a maternal grandmother custody of her two grandchildren following their mother's death. The biological father had a documented history of domestic violence, substance abuse, and exposed the children to a turbulent environment. Medical evaluations indicated the father suffered from an alcohol-induced mood disorder, while a social worker noted the eldest child exhibited behaviors consistent with exposure to chronic family violence and potential abuse. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's finding of extraordinary circumstances and concluded that awarding custody to the grandmother was in the children's best interest, citing her commitment to their emotional needs.

CustodyChild CustodyFamily LawDomestic ViolenceSubstance AbuseParental FitnessExtraordinary CircumstancesBest Interest of the ChildGrandparent CustodyAppellate Review
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 527 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