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

Oi Tai Chan v. Society of Shaolin Temple, Inc.

In this vigorously contested action alleging fraud and breach of contract, the court addressed several motions. Defendant Shi's motion for summary judgment was denied due to unresolved factual disputes regarding the nature of significant monetary transfers from the plaintiff to a religious organization. The court granted the plaintiff's cross-motion to resume defendant Shi's deposition, sanctioning defense counsel Kenneth Jiang for repeatedly instructing his client not to answer questions in defiance of prior court directives. Additionally, the court denied Shi's cross-motion to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, citing a lack of necessary testimony, cumulative evidence, and the motion's untimely and potentially retaliatory nature. A special referee was appointed to supervise remaining discovery and settlement efforts.

Fraudulent InducementBreach of ContractDiscovery DisputeSummary Judgment MotionDeposition ObstructionAttorney SanctionsCounsel DisqualificationRules of Professional ConductAudio Recording AdmissibilityQueens County Court
References
68
Case No. ADJ8718900
Regular
Jun 27, 2019

JOSE ANTONIO RAMIREZ RAYA vs. JOANNE RUIZ, dba J'S SPORTS BAR & GRILL

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted defendant's petition for removal, rescinding the judge's order that denied a motion to quash a deposition of defense counsel. The Board found that depositions of opposing counsel are disfavored and require a high standard of cause, which was not met. Furthermore, the judge denied the motion without a hearing or proper justification, violating due process. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings, emphasizing the need for well-supported discovery requests given the age of the claim.

Petition for RemovalMotion to QuashDeposition of Defense CounselOpposing Counsel DepositionDisfavored DiscoveryIntoxication DefenseLabor Code Section 3600(a)(4)Burden of ProofPanel QMEStipulation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
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
Jul 13, 2000

Bordeau v. Village of Deposit

Plaintiffs Brian K. Bordeau, Francis Laundry Jr., and Jeffrey S. Laundry initiated a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging violations of their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Fourteenth Amendment rights, as well as New York State common law claims, against the Village of Deposit, its Police Chief Jon Bowie, and Village Justice Peter McDade. The lawsuit arose from an incident in May 1997 involving alleged unlawful arrest, excessive force, and malicious prosecution. Defendants moved for summary judgment on several causes of action. The court denied summary judgment for claims of false arrest, false imprisonment, malicious prosecution against Chief Bowie, and a state law assault and battery claim against Justice McDade. However, it granted summary judgment dismissing claims against the Village related to an alleged pattern of unconstitutional conduct and claims against Justice McDade based on judicial immunity. Additionally, all claims against the New York State Troopers, the Village Police Department, and punitive damages against the Village were dismissed. The case will proceed to trial on the remaining federal and state law claims.

Civil RightsSection 1983False ArrestFalse ImprisonmentMalicious ProsecutionMunicipal LiabilityJudicial ImmunityExcessive ForceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Law
References
36
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06734 [200 AD3d 1162]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2021

DiCenzo v. Mone

William R. DiCenzo II, acting as guardian, appealed two Supreme Court orders. The first order dismissed claims against Debbie Cutler and Cutler, Trainor & Cutler LLP. The second order partially dismissed claims against Michael Mone, Nicholas Mone, Barbara Mone, and Courtenay W. Hall, disqualified plaintiff's counsel, and denied plaintiff's motion to disqualify opposing counsel. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of most claims, finding them either time-barred or failing to state a cause of action. However, the court reversed and reinstated a portion of a breach of contract claim for installments due after December 2012, as the defendants did not prove debt acceleration. The disqualification of plaintiff's counsel was upheld under the advocate-witness rule, and the refusal to disqualify opposing counsel was also affirmed.

Statute of LimitationsBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementBreach of Fiduciary DutyConstructive TrustEquitable EstoppelAdvocate-Witness RuleAttorney DisqualificationDismissalSummary Judgment
References
32
Case No. AHM 0109985
Regular
Aug 04, 2008

JOSE PERDOMO vs. ABC SUPPLY COMPANY, INC., ESIS

This case involves a dispute over a deposition scheduled by applicant's counsel, which defense counsel claims was erroneously set and misrepresented. The defendant sought removal of an order that took the case off calendar, alleging prejudice from applicant's counsel's representations. The Appeals Board granted removal, rescinded the off-calendar order, and returned the matter to the trial level to determine the conflicting factual claims regarding the deposition.

Petition for RemovalOrder Taking Off CalendarAppirionWCJDepositionApplicant CounselDefense CounselVerified AnswerReport and RecommendationTrial Level
References
0
Case No. CV-24-0993
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Daphyne Rodin

Claimant sustained a work-related left shoulder injury in 2014, leading to differing medical opinions on schedule loss of use (SLU) between her treating physician and the carrier's orthopedic consultant. A conciliation decision directed depositions, and claimant's counsel subpoenaed the carrier's consultant, who failed to appear. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and subsequently the Board found no SLU, with the Board refusing to preclude the consultant's report due to claimant's counsel's failure to timely request an extension for the deposition. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that claimant waived the right to cross-examine the consultant by not making reasonable efforts to reschedule or seek an extension for the deposition. The Court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision not to preclude the medical report.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of Use (SLU)Medical Report PreclusionDeposition TestimonyCross-Examination RightsWaiver of RightAppellate DivisionBoard Decision AffirmationOrthopedic InjuryMaximum Medical Improvement (MMI)
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nadler v. Federal Deposit Insurance

Congressman Jerrold Nadler, the Tribeca Community Association, and the 67 Vestry Street Tenants Association sued the Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation (FDIC) under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to compel the disclosure of a redacted joint venture agreement. The FDIC, acting as receiver for the failed American Savings Bank (ASB), withheld information related to ASB's subsidiary, Amore Holdings, Inc., citing FOIA Exemption Four for trade secrets and confidential commercial or financial information. The court, applying the National Parks test, determined that public disclosure would significantly impair the FDIC’s ability to maximize profits from its receivership assets and cause substantial competitive harm to Amore. Consequently, the court granted the FDIC’s motion for summary judgment, denied the plaintiffs’ cross-motion, and dismissed the complaint.

FOIAExemption FourCommercial InformationConfidentialityFDIC ReceivershipSummary JudgmentGovernment AgencyReal Estate DevelopmentFreedom of Information Act
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 2,164 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