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. 90-CV-641
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1993

Verone v. Taconic Telephone Corp.

Chief Judge McAvoy presided over an order regarding motions for recusal and contempt in case 90-CV-641. Plaintiff Thomas A. Verone sought the recusal of the judge and to hold his attorney, Paul A. Moore, in contempt for failing to comply with prior orders concerning sanction payments. The court denied the recusal motion, finding no sufficient basis for disqualification. However, the court found clear and convincing evidence of Paul A. Moore's noncompliance, granting the contempt motion. Moore was ordered to pay Thomas A. Verone $6,980.00 within thirty days, with the provision for his arrest and confinement by the United States Marshal if he failed to comply.

Civil ContemptAttorney SanctionsRecusal MotionRule 11 SanctionsPayment DefaultJudicial OrdersNoncomplianceConditional ArrestLegal EthicsJudicial Integrity
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grant v. Rycoline Products, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed an order from December 20, 1996, which denied the defendant-appellant's motion to reject a Special Referee’s report and for a protective order, confirming the report and directing the production of certain records. Additionally, the court modified an order from February 28, 1997, to grant the defendant-appellant 45 days to comply with the directive, specifically for the production of redacted employee worker compensation records. The court found that the IAS Court did not abuse its discretion in relying on the Referee’s report.

Discovery DisputeProtective OrderSpecial RefereeWorkers' Compensation RecordsCompliance ExtensionJudicial DiscretionAppellate ReviewMotion DenialRecord Production
References
0
Case No. 99 Civ. 3200(DLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Cordius Trust v. KUMMERFELD ASSOCIATES, INC.

The court found Donald D. Kummerfeld, Elizabeth M. Kummerfeld, and Kummerfeld Associates, Inc. in civil contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders and restraining notices. The Kummerfelds repeatedly evaded judgment enforcement by activities such as increasing the mortgage on their Cape Cod property, filing a homestead declaration, and making significant expenditures instead of satisfying the judgment. The court rejected arguments of ambiguous notices and upheld the validity of the restraining orders based on due process considerations. As sanctions, the Kummerfelds were ordered to pay $10,000 for fees and costs, Donald Kummerfeld to complete discovery, and both to provide documentation on their Cape Cod property's value. Failure to comply would result in further remedial and coercive sanctions.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsPost-Judgment EnforcementRestraining OrdersFraudulent TransferPiercing Corporate VeilNew York C.P.L.R. § 5222Massachusetts Homestead ExemptionAttorneys' FeesMagistrate Judge Order
References
47
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
Apr 12, 1990

Commissioners of State Insurance Fund v. Valenzano

The Commissioners of the State Insurance Fund initiated an action against Marcello Valenzano, doing business as ABC Contracting Co., for unpaid workers' compensation insurance premiums. The defendant failed to comply with discovery requests, leading to an order conditionally striking his answer and later, a default judgment. Defendant's pro se motion to vacate the default judgment, asserting non-receipt of documents and partial compliance, was denied by the IAS court. The court found service proper and noted the defendant's failure to demonstrate a meritorious defense. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding the lower court acted within its discretion to strike the answer for willful failure to comply with discovery, considering the lack of reasonable excuse and meritorious defense.

Default JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsFailure to ComplyWorkers' Compensation InsuranceVacate JudgmentMeritorious DefenseService of ProcessAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureSupreme Court
References
3
Case No. MON 284627
Regular
Aug 11, 2008

BEVERLY DE ROSA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to review a sanctions order against the defendant for alleged willful failure to comply with a prior order. The defendant's claims adjuster asserted they had provided the required earnings information within the deadline, which conflicted with the initial finding of non-compliance. The Board rescinded the sanctions and returned the case for further proceedings to determine whether the defendant actually complied with the order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardBeverly De RosaState Compensation Insurance FundLabor Code section 5813willful failure to complySupplemental Findings and Order Imposing Sanctionsapplicant's earningscervical spinepsychestipulated Findings and Award
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. Action No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Felicciardi v. Town of Brookhaven

Maureen Felicciardi was injured after slipping and falling on a negligently waxed floor in a federal building. She commenced two actions for damages, Action No. 1 in Suffolk County and Action No. 2 in New York County, naming Nelson Maintenance Services, Inc. as a defendant. Nelson moved for summary judgment in Action No. 1 due to the plaintiffs' failure to comply with a conditional order of preclusion. The Supreme Court denied Nelson's motion and excused the plaintiffs' default. On appeal, the order denying summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that the Supreme Court improvidently exercised its discretion in excusing the plaintiffs' lengthy and inadequately explained delay in complying with the discovery order, especially given the potential prejudice to Nelson in proving negligence years after the incident. Consequently, the complaint in Action No. 1 was dismissed against Nelson.

Personal InjurySlip and FallSummary JudgmentDiscovery SanctionsOrder of PreclusionExcusable DefaultLaw Office FailureAppellate ReviewSuffolk CountyNegligence
References
5
Case No. ADJ6870715
Regular
Sep 08, 2010

JOSE VELEZ vs. PROGRESSIVE PRODUCE, ZURICH

The WCAB vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the lien claimant's petition because the appealed WCJ order was not a final, appealable decision. However, the Board granted removal due to the WCJ's procedural error in striking a medical report via an unauthorized "walk-through" order, which violated due process and WCAB rules. The case is returned to the trial level for proper proceedings on the defendant's discovery motion regarding the physician's deposition. The WCJ can then address issues like deposition fees and potential sanctions if the physician fails to comply.

WCABReconsiderationRemovalStrike Medical ReportDepositionFee DisputeDue ProcessWalk-through OrderWCJLien Claimant
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 24,259 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