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

Capozzi v. Whitman

This case involves an Article 78 application for a writ of prohibition against a Justice of the Municipal Court. The petitioner, acting as a landlord, sought to prevent the Municipal Court from vacating a final order and warrant of eviction previously issued in a summary proceeding. The tenant had moved to set aside the final order, citing fraud or mistake. The court ruled that it possesses inherent power to vacate its own judgments or final orders in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the petitioner was found to have an adequate remedy through appeal. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the proceeding for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Article 78Writ of ProhibitionSummary ProceedingVacating Final OrderInherent Court PowerAppellate RemedyLandlord-Tenant DisputeFraudNewly Discovered EvidenceMunicipal Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 04, 2007

Osorio v. Conway

Carlos Osorio, a pro se petitioner, sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his 1999 New York state conviction for various crimes, including burglary and robbery. He argued insufficient evidence, improper jury instructions on identification, erroneous admission of evidence, prosecutorial misconduct, and ineffective assistance of trial counsel. The District Court, presided over by Judge Chin, denied the petition. The court found that sufficient evidence supported the conviction, the jury charge was proper, and the evidence was admissible. Furthermore, the court determined that the prosecutor's comments did not violate due process and Osorio's counsel provided effective assistance, having conveyed plea offers and made a reasonable strategic decision regarding an alibi defense. Consequently, the petition for a writ of habeas corpus was denied.

Habeas CorpusIneffective Assistance of CounselProsecutorial MisconductJury InstructionsSufficiency of EvidencePretrial IdentificationDue ProcessCriminal ProcedureState ConvictionFederal Review
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parson v. Portuondo

Petitioner Jerry E. Parson sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. He objected to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny his petition, arguing his reply brief was overlooked. The District Court conducted a full review, addressing Parson's claims of alibi defense preclusion and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found the alibi claim procedurally barred and lacking actual prejudice, and determined that the Appellate Division's rejection of the ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to established federal law. Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied, and a certificate of appealability was withheld.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselalibi defenseprocedural defaultactual prejudiceconstitutional rightsfederal reviewcriminal procedurejudicial reviewconviction
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Human Resources Administration v. Carey

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 petition in the nature of a writ of prohibition. The petitioner, the City Human Resources Administration (HRA), sought to vacate a Supreme Court order regarding defendant Delgado, who was charged with arson. Delgado was found by two psychiatrists to be an incapacitated person unable to stand trial due to a severe hearing defect. The lower court, misinterpreting CPL article 730, ruled that Delgado's physical incapacity did not fall under the statute and ordered his placement with HRA and the Department of Social Services. The appellate court granted the writ of prohibition, vacating the lower court's order for exceeding its jurisdiction. The court declared Delgado incompetent to stand trial *nunc pro tunc* and committed him to the custody of the New York State Commissioner of Mental Health, clarifying that CPL 730.10 broadly applies to any mental defect causing incapacity, regardless of its source. The decision emphasized that the statute does not distinguish between different sources of disability once a finding of incapacity is made.

Incompetency to Stand TrialWrit of ProhibitionMental IncapacityCriminal Procedure LawJurisdiction DisputeArson Third DegreeDue ProcessCommitment OrderAppellate ReviewPhysical Impairment
References
1
Case No. VNO 178912 LAO 571596
Regular
Oct 04, 2007

MARCUS CAZARES vs. NORMAN BELL ENTERPRISES, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the applicant's petitions for reconsideration, writ of mandate, and removal. The WCAB found that the order denying an expedited hearing was interlocutory and not subject to reconsideration, and that the WCAB lacks jurisdiction to issue writs of mandate. Furthermore, the applicant failed to demonstrate substantial prejudice or irreparable harm to warrant removal.

WCABOpinion and OrdersDismissing PetitionPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for Writ of MandatePetition for RemovalExpedited Hearing5402 PresumptionLabor Code Section 5402Interlocutory Procedural Order
References
2
Case No. ADJ2947052 (VNO 0546351) ADJ3192061 (VNO 0547246)
Regular
Jul 19, 2016

ALANE DAVIS vs. URBAN BRANDS, INC., dba ASHLEY STEWART, AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY

This case involves a supplemental award of attorney's fees for appellate services rendered by applicant's counsel. The Court of Appeal had previously remanded the matter for this specific purpose after denying the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Board awarded applicant's attorney $13,600.00 for 34 hours of work at $400.00 per hour, deeming this reasonable for opposing the writ. Costs for brief service and delivery were also awarded, totaling $1,276.23.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardAttorney FeesPetition for Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Supplemental AwardAppellate ServicesReasonable Hourly RateItemization of ServicesEAMSNovel Issues
References
1
Case No. ADJ9770975
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

GUSTAVO RUBALCAVA, vs. AMERJIT GILL AND COAST XPRESS AKA COAST EXPRESS, INC.,

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney following a successful defense against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the matter for such an award. The Appeals Board awarded $20,500.00 in attorney's fees and $712.69 in costs, reducing the requested amounts due to duplicative entries and internal copying charges. The award is for services rendered in opposing the writ of review, considering the complexity of the issues and the quality of the appellate work.

Labor Code § 5801supplemental awardattorney's feeswrit of reviewFifth District Court of Appealverified petitionhourly rateappellate workreasonable feescomplexity of issues
References
2
Case No. ADJ10065068
Regular
May 02, 2018

JOHN LAMBERT vs. COUNTY OF KERN

This case concerns a supplemental award of attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney. Following the denial of the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review by the Court of Appeal, the matter was remanded for this specific purpose. The applicant's attorney submitted a petition requesting \$9,765.00 for 27.9 hours of work at \$350 per hour in opposing the writ. Without objection from the defendant and after considering the reasonableness of the requested fees, the Appeals Board awarded the full \$9,765.00 in appellate attorney's fees.

Labor Code § 5801additional attorney's feessupplemental awardPetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appealappellate attorney's feestime loghourly ratecase-by-case basismerits of appellate work
References
1
Case No. ADJ7148169
Regular
Nov 05, 2019

MARIA GARCIA vs. ST. JOHN KNITS, TRAVELERS PROPERTY AND CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Appeals Board awarded applicant's attorney $6,700.00 in additional attorney fees for services rendered in responding to the defendant's unsuccessful Petition for Writ of Review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the case specifically for this supplemental fee award. While the hourly rate was deemed reasonable, the Board determined the total fee based on the attorney's time, effort, and the merits of opposing the writ. Despite the case being of average complexity, the attorney's thorough response to the defendant's factually based petition justified the full requested amount.

Writ of ReviewLabor Code § 5801Supplemental AwardAttorney's FeesAppellate ServicesPetition for Writ of ReviewWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Attorney's FeesReasonable Hourly RateTime and Effort
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1974

People ex rel. Price v. Warden of New York City Correctional Institution

The relator, an inmate at the New York City Correctional Institution for Men on Riker's Island, was segregated after an anonymous note indicated a threat to homosexual prisoners. Following an interview and investigation confirming his homosexuality, and his refusal to transfer to segregated housing, he was placed in punitive then administrative segregation. A three-man board hearing preceded his administrative segregation. The court, acknowledging the prison's exigent situation and existing problems within correctional facilities, determined that due process was substantially afforded. Consequently, the Supreme Court, Bronx County's judgment dismissing the relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was affirmed.

HomosexualityInmate SegregationPunitive SegregationAdministrative SegregationDue ProcessHabeas CorpusCorrectional FacilitiesRiker's IslandInmate RightsPrison Administration
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 498 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