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

Brown v. First National City Bank

This case involves a customer challenging First National City Bank's method of calculating interest on Checking Plus accounts, alleging violations of the National Bank Act and New York Banking Law. The plaintiff brought claims regarding the bank's practice of using multiples of one hundred for advances, charging interest on interest, and charging interest on service charges. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment on the issue of advancing funds in multiples of one hundred, finding it violated statutory requirements. However, summary judgment was denied concerning interest on service charges, and the defendant was granted judgment on the repayment method, as it did not contravene the New York Banking Law.

Banking LawNational Bank ActSummary JudgmentInterest CalculationChecking Plus AccountsOverdraftsUsury LawsLoan RepaymentJurisdictionPendent Jurisdiction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Figueroa v. New York Thruway Authority

Petitioner, an Affirmative Action Administrator, faced multiple misconduct charges and subsequent suspensions without pay from respondent. Initial hearings found her guilty of several specifications, leading to a 60-day suspension. Further charges resulted in additional 30-day suspensions. Petitioner challenged these determinations and the legality of the suspensions through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, seeking back pay and new hearings. The court confirmed the guilt findings and penalties for the initial charges but partially granted the petition, directing respondent to conduct hearings for two outstanding sets of charges to resolve the petitioner's claim for back wages.

Public Employment DisciplineMisconduct ChargesSuspension Without PayCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewDue ProcessBack Pay ClaimResignation EffectHearing Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gold v. Chassin

The petitioner, a licensed psychiatrist, faced disciplinary proceedings for alleged sexual misconduct with five former patients. A Hearing Committee and Administrative Review Board found him guilty on multiple specifications and revoked his medical license. The petitioner sought annulment, claiming actual prejudice due to the 15-25 year delay in charges, citing lost records, deceased witnesses, and faded memories. The court found that for patients B and E, the unavailability of records demonstrating psychological impairments or contradicting appointment logs severely hampered his defense, leading to dismissal of these charges. However, charges related to patients A, C, and D were sustained, as prejudice was not sufficiently demonstrated or his defense was adequate. The court remitted the matter for a redetermination of the penalty, excluding the dismissed charges.

Professional Medical ConductPsychiatrist MisconductSexual MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsActual PrejudiceStatute of Limitations DefenseDue ProcessWitness CredibilityHearsay EvidenceAnnulment of Charges
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2007

In re Adams

The Grievance Committee brought eight charges of professional misconduct against attorney Jeffrey M. Adams, which were sustained by a Special Referee. The charges included commingling personal and client funds, breaching fiduciary duty by failing to safeguard client funds and maintain adequate IOLA account balances, mistakenly depositing escrow funds into an operating account, and failing to maintain required bookkeeping records. Additionally, Charge Eight alleged improper sharing of legal fees with his suspended father, Eugene J. Adams, without obtaining court approval. The Court granted the Grievance Committee's motion to confirm all charges. Despite some mitigating factors, the Court found multiple breaches of fiduciary obligation and a longstanding disregard for proper escrow practices, ultimately imposing a one-year suspension on the respondent.

Attorney MisconductCommingling FundsFiduciary Duty BreachIOLA AccountEscrow ViolationsFee SplittingSuspended AttorneyProfessional DisciplineJudicial EthicsLegal Accounting
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2004

People v. Dalton

The defendant appealed a judgment from Chenango County Court following her conviction on multiple counts of sexual misconduct, rape, use of a child in a sexual performance, incest, criminal solicitation, and endangering the welfare of a child involving her three children. The appellate court found that the criminal solicitation charges should have been dismissed due to a statutory exemption and that several counts (rape, incest, use of a child in a sexual performance, and criminal solicitation) were duplicitous, requiring their dismissal with leave for the People to resubmit nonduplicitous charges. However, the court affirmed the lower court's decisions regarding the denial of a juror for cause, access to confidential counseling records, proper impeachment of a witness, and the refusal to charge the jury on accomplice testimony. The imposed maximum sentence for the remaining convictions (course of sexual conduct against a child and endangering the welfare of a child) was upheld.

Criminal LawSexual AbuseChild EndangermentIncestRapeCriminal SolicitationDuplicitous IndictmentAccomplice TestimonyAppellate ProcedureEvidence
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lee v. Ambach

The petitioner, a physician, initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to annul a determination by the Commissioner of Education. This determination suspended his license to practice medicine for one year, with the suspension stayed pending compliance with probation terms. Charges against the petitioner stemmed from his alleged misconduct as a pathologist, including directing an unlicensed lab technician to perform medical procedures (eviscerating cadavers unsupervised) and multiple incidents of sexual harassment of female hospital workers. While a hearing panel found him guilty of both categories of charges and recommended license revocation, the Board of Regents largely agreed only on the unsupervised technician charge and modified the penalty. The Board imposed a one-year concurrent suspension, stayed, with one year of probation requiring psychiatric care if necessary. The court reviewed the determination, found it supported by substantial evidence, and concluded that the disciplinary procedures did not violate the petitioner’s due process rights, thereby confirming the determination and dismissing the petition.

Medical License SuspensionProfessional MisconductUnsupervised Medical PracticeSexual Harassment AllegationsPathologist DisciplineBoard of Regents Decision ReviewCPLR Article 78 ProceedingSubstantial Evidence StandardDue Process RightsProbationary Period
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Murphy v. International Business MacHines Corp.

This case involves five pro se plaintiffs who filed a complaint against International Business Machines Corporation (IBM), alleging constructive discharge in violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA). IBM sought to dismiss the complaint on multiple grounds, including the plaintiffs' failure to exhaust administrative remedies by not filing charges with the EEOC. The court found that Kamalakar V. Narsule and Stephen M. Zick had not filed EEOC charges, leading to the dismissal of their claims. Erach Maneska Singpurwala's claim was dismissed due to untimeliness and issue preclusion, as he had previously sued IBM on the same facts. Michael John Shelpack's claim was also dismissed as untimely, having filed his EEOC charge more than 300 days after his employment ended. Lastly, Peter J. Murphy's claim was dismissed because he had signed a knowing and voluntary waiver of his right to sue IBM for age discrimination, accepting a severance package. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against IBM for all plaintiffs.

Age DiscriminationConstructive DischargeSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesEEOCRight to Sue LetterUntimely FilingWaiver of ClaimsOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActRes Judicata
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Karam v. Executive Charge/Love Taxi

Claimant initiated a workers' compensation case, leading to a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge finding an employer-employee relationship with Executive Charge/Love Taxi. This finding was affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board, which rejected the independent contractor argument. Executive Charge/Love Taxi appealed this interlocutory decision. The appellate court, citing precedent from *Matter of Dubnoff v Feathers Sportswear*, determined that the Board's ruling on employment status was not a final or 'threshold legal issue' warranting immediate review. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal, reinforcing the policy against piecemeal review of substantive issues in compensation cases.

Workers' CompensationEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorInterlocutory AppealAppellate ReviewJurisdictionPiecemeal ReviewBoard DecisionDismissed AppealWorkers' Compensation Board
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stair v. Calhoun

Plaintiffs' counsel, Ballon Stoll Bader & Nadler, P.C., moved to withdraw from representing plaintiffs and sought a charging and retaining lien due to plaintiff Theodore Stair's substantial unpaid legal fees. Stair opposed the withdrawal, citing a pending settlement. The court granted counsel's motion to withdraw, finding Stair's prolonged failure to pay constituted deliberate disregard of his financial obligations. The court also granted a charging lien for $37,546.87, representing adjusted reasonable hours and expenses, but denied the motion for a retaining lien to prevent prejudice to the ongoing litigation and due to Stair's alleged indigence.

Withdrawal of CounselCharging LienRetaining LienUnpaid Legal FeesAttorney-Client RelationshipDeliberate DisregardQuantum MeruitShareholder DilutionMotion PracticeFee Dispute
References
86
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,788 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