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

Spinella v. Town of Paris Zoning Board of Appeals

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days, deeming it abandoned. Petitioners' counsel, a qualified individual with a visual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, argued that his impairment constituted 'good cause' for the delay. He sought reasonable accommodation, citing past accommodations for the bar exam and law school, as well as an increased workload due to a lost secretary. The court found that the counsel's visual impairment indeed served as good cause for noncompliance with the established time limits. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the proposed judgment was signed, recognizing the extension of time as a reasonable accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability AccommodationJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTime LimitsGood CauseVisual ImpairmentAttorney DisabilityCourt Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kaleb U.

The case involves an appeal from a Family Court order that revoked a suspended judgment and terminated the parental rights of David U. (father) and Cynthia V. (mother) concerning their son, Kaleb U., who has multiple disabilities. Following an earlier neglect adjudication, respondents agreed to a suspended judgment with several conditions. Petitioner later sought to revoke this judgment due to the respondents' noncompliance with conditions such as attending support groups, submitting to drug tests, attending visitations, and managing the father's alcohol issues. The Family Court found substantial noncompliance and terminated parental rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, deferring to the Family Court's findings and noting the parents' excuses for noncompliance, concluding that termination was in the child's best interest for adoption.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectSuspended Judgment RevocationChild WelfareFamily Court AppealNoncomplianceFoster CareSocial Services LawAppellate ReviewBroome County
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chacon v. Calimia Construction Co.

Calimia Construction Company and Neys Escobar appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which conditionally granted their motion to dismiss a third-party complaint from Bruno Frustaci Contracting, Inc. due to noncompliance with disclosure orders, and denied their motion for summary judgment to dismiss a contractual indemnification claim. Bruno Frustaci Contracting, Inc. cross-appealed the same order. The appellate court dismissed the cross-appeal as abandoned. The court affirmed the Supreme Court's order insofar as appealed from, finding issues of fact regarding the extent of Frustaci's control and supervision over Calimia's workers, which precluded summary judgment on the indemnification claim. The court also upheld the conditional grant to dismiss for disclosure noncompliance.

Personal InjuryContractual IndemnificationSummary Judgment MotionDisclosure OrdersAppellate ReviewThird-Party PracticeSubcontractor LiabilityGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityCross-Appeal DismissalProcedural Compliance
References
5
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 04463 [142 AD3d 34]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2016

Matter of Puerto v. Doar

This case addresses the legality of notices provided to public assistance recipients in New York City regarding their failure to comply with mandatory work assessments and employability plans. Petitioner Carol Puerto challenged these notices, arguing they inadequately explained 'good cause' for non-compliance and lacked provisions for curing noncompliance prospectively. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the challenged notices and the associated regulation, 18 NYCRR 385.11(a)(2), comply with Social Services Law § 341(1). The court also upheld the dismissal of the claim that recipients must be offered a chance to prospectively cure noncompliance. While not a definitive ruling, the court also expressed concern over the HRA's 'autoposting' system for sanctions.

Public AssistanceWork RequirementsNotice ValiditySocial Services LawAdministrative LawDue ProcessMootness DoctrineAppellate ReviewGovernment BenefitsNew York
References
17
Case No. 530744
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 08, 2021

Matter of Centeno v. Academy Group Props., LLC

Claimant Marvin Centeno was injured in 2015 while working on renovations in Connecticut and filed for workers' compensation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found him an employee of uninsured employers Academy Group Properties, LLC and Yehuda Amar, holding them jointly and severally liable. The employers' initial application for Board review was denied due to noncompliance with procedural regulations (12 NYCRR 300.13 [b]). Following a WCLJ decision on the claimant's schedule loss of use (SLU), the employers again sought Board review, challenging the employment relationship and alleging lack of notice for the SLU hearing. The Workers' Compensation Board denied this second application, citing continued noncompliance with the regulatory requirements for specifying issues and grounds for appeal and objections made. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion in denying review based on the incompleteness of the application.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate DivisionBoard Review ApplicationProcedural NoncomplianceEmployment Relationship DisputeUninsured EmployerSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Due Process ViolationHearing NoticeAdministrative Review
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. DiPaolo

Plaintiff, the United States government, sued Salvatore DiPaolo, Jr. for failing to comply with a final administrative order issued by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regarding violations of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) for two underground diesel fuel storage tanks in Yonkers, New York. DiPaolo failed to comply with pre-hearing procedures, did not attend the administrative hearing, and subsequently defaulted on civil penalties of $80,317 and compliance orders. The government initiated this action to enforce the ALJ's default order and seek additional civil penalties for continued noncompliance and failure to provide requested information. The District Court granted the government's motion for default judgment as to liability, affirming the original $80,317 penalty under *res judicata*. Additionally, the court assessed $9,364.14 for persistent noncompliance and a nominal $1 penalty for failing to furnish information, totaling $89,682.14, and issued injunctive relief requiring compliance with EPA requirements or permanent closure of the tanks, and submission of the requested information.

Environmental LawRCRAUST ViolationsEPA EnforcementDefault JudgmentCivil PenaltiesInjunctive ReliefRes JudicataRegulatory NoncomplianceFederal Litigation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Olczyk v. Verizon New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had affirmed a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge's ruling to preclude an independent medical examiner's report and its addendum. The preclusion stemmed from the self-insured employer's failure to file the report with the Board within the mandated 10 business days, as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 137. The appellate court upheld the Board's decision, concluding that both the original medical report and its addendum were properly excluded due to noncompliance with the statutory filing requirements.

Independent Medical ExaminationMedical Report PreclusionWorkers' Compensation BoardTimeliness RequirementsMedical EvidenceAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewComplianceProcedural RulesSelf-Insured Employer
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00700 [235 AD3d 1038]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 2025

People v. Lister

Defendant appealed a judgment revoking her probation and imposing a term of imprisonment. The County Court revoked probation after finding defendant violated conditions by failing to make restitution payments and unilaterally altering prescribed medication dosages. The appellate court found that defendant's admitted alteration of medication, despite being advised against it, was sufficient to discharge the People's burden of proof. The court also determined that defendant's explanations for her actions were insufficient. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, concluding that the resentence was not unduly harsh given defendant's history of noncompliance.

Probation ViolationIdentity TheftRestitutionSelf-medicationAppellate ReviewResentencingCriminal Procedure LawPreponderance of EvidenceJustifiable ExcuseWaiver of Appeal
References
5
Case No. ADJ2184424
Regular
May 11, 2011

TORY RILEY vs. CITY OF PASADENA

The Appeals Board amended the prior award to find applicant sustained injury only to her right knee, rescinding the finding of a left knee injury as a compensable consequence. The matter was returned to the trial level for a new permanent disability rating for the right knee injury, requiring consideration of the Agreed Medical Examiner's apportionment and prior awards. Temporary disability for a specific period was deferred pending further determination regarding its relation to the now-excluded left knee injury. Applicant's attorney's petition for increased fees was deemed moot and would have been dismissed for procedural noncompliance.

Compensable consequence injuryPermanent disability ratingAgreed Medical Examiner (AME)AMA GuidesApportionmentLeft knee replacementRight knee injuryTemporary disabilityAttorney feesFindings and Award
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2007

Macro Enterprises, Ltd. v. QBE Insurance

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order denying plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and granting defendant's cross motion for summary judgment. The court declared that the plaintiff is not entitled to defense and indemnity coverage in an underlying third-party action. The decision was based on the plaintiff's failure to notify the defendant insurer for over two years about an employee's injury at a construction site, which constituted noncompliance with a condition precedent to coverage and vitiated the insurance contract. The plaintiff's claimed belief of nonliability, premised on the Workers' Compensation Law, was deemed unreasonable under the circumstances.

Summary JudgmentInsurance CoverageLate NoticeCondition PrecedentWorkers' Compensation LawConstruction AccidentIndemnity CoverageDefense CoverageAppellate AffirmationContract Vitiation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 34 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