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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. ADJ7981277
Regular
Mar 16, 2018

CYNTHIA HERRERA vs. INTERNATIONAL INSTITUTE OF LOS ANGELES, CYPRESS INSURANCE COMPANY

The lien claimant, Beverly Hills Radiology, sought removal of a trial setting order, alleging denial of due process. The Board granted removal, finding the trial setting order improperly excluded the lien claimant from participating in crucial pre-trial proceedings. This exclusion, based on perceived deficiencies in Notices of Representation, violated the lien claimant's right to a fair hearing. Consequently, the trial setting order was rescinded, and the matter was returned to the judge for further proceedings.

WCABremovallien claimantdue processnotice of representationtrial setting orderlien conferenceWCJCompromise and ReleaseAssignment
References
15
Case No. ADJ3502038 (VNO 0531200) ADJ3850322 (VNO 0531201)
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

MARIA DE LA LUZ PADILLA vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC., HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Stipulations and Award (S&A) regarding applicant's neck, shoulder, and chest injuries. The defendant claimed mutual mistake and delays by applicant's attorney as grounds to set aside the S&A. However, the WCAB found these allegations insufficient to overturn the executed contract. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the defendant's separate petition to set aside the S&A, due to apparent procedural irregularities.

Stipulations and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideMutual Mistake of FactGood CauseDelay in ApprovalService of DocumentEthical BreachesTrial Level ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vullo v. Sheets (In Re Sheets)

The debtors, James and Irene Sheets, filed a Chapter 7 bankruptcy petition and exempted their two pre-petition personal injury actions under New York State law. After the lawsuits settled post-petition, the trustee initiated an adversary proceeding to claim the proceeds as property of the bankruptcy estate. The court determined that because the personal injury actions were validly exempted from the estate at the commencement of the case, their proceeds did not subsequently become estate property. Citing legal precedent, the decision emphasized that exempted property and its resulting proceeds revert to the debtors' control, not the trustee's. Consequently, the trustee's application for a turnover order seeking these personal injury recoveries was denied.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7 BankruptcyProperty ExemptionsPersonal Injury ProceedsBankruptcy EstateAdversary ProceedingTurnover OrderNew York Exemption LawDebtor RightsPost-Petition Settlements
References
5
Case No. ADJ2237512 (LAO 0800529), ADJ2160716 (LAO 0800527), ADJ634371 (LAO 0817484)
Regular
Sep 09, 2015

MARIA MORALES vs. UNIVERSAL FURNITURE, AIG PROPERTY CASUALTY, TRAVELERS PROPERTY CASUALTY COMPANY OF AMERICA

The Appeals Board denied applicant's Petition for Removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The applicant argued that a deadline to complete pre-trial conference statements caused significant prejudice, but the Board found ample opportunity for discovery and preparation had been provided. The Board noted the trial judge properly set the matter for trial according to statutory requirements. Accordingly, removal was denied, and the case will proceed to trial.

Petition for RemovalPre-Trial Conference StatementIndustrial InjuryMultiple Body PartsCumulative InjuryDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMedical EvaluationMinutes of HearingStipulations and IssuesWCJ
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Roland (In Re Roland)

This post-trial decision concerns an adversary proceeding initiated by the plaintiff, Marjorie Thompson, Esq., against her former husband, the debtor, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The plaintiff sought to declare the debtor's obligation to pay her attorney's fees non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) or (a)(15). These fees stemmed from state court litigation where the plaintiff compelled the debtor to cooperate in the sale of a jointly owned property, and from the current bankruptcy proceedings. The court analyzed whether an enforceable right to attorney's fees existed under the parties' separation agreement's indemnification clause. It concluded that the indemnification provisions did not cover the specific breach committed by the debtor, thus failing to establish a contractual right to attorney's fees. As a result, the court ruled there was no "debt" to be deemed non-dischargeable and dismissed the adversary proceeding on its merits.

Bankruptcy LawNon-Dischargeability of DebtAttorney's FeesSeparation AgreementIndemnification ClauseContract InterpretationRooker-Feldman DoctrineStipulation of LawChapter 7Adversary Proceeding
References
25
Case No. ADJ8782991, ADJ8783990
Regular
Aug 08, 2013

CHANTELLE LOPEZ vs. LOS ANGELES COUNTY OFFICE OF EDUCATION, YORK RISK SERVICES GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's Petition for Removal seeking to rescind an order continuing the case to trial. The Board found the petition to be procedurally deficient as it was unverified and lacked a showing of significant prejudice. While the defendant correctly argued the cases shouldn't have been set for a priority conference due to admitted injuries, the conference effectively served as a settlement conference, and the trial is not limited to just temporary disability. The Board affirmed that the trial may proceed on all issues identified in the Pre-Trial Conference Statement.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalPriority ConferenceMandatory Settlement ConferencePre-Trial Conference StatementDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedWCJUnverified PetitionPrimary Treating PhysicianMedical-Legal Process
References
1
Case No. ADJ7422830; ADJ7605326
Regular
Feb 11, 2014

SALLY BRAITHWAITE MARSHALL vs. SANTA MARIA JOINT UNION HIGH SCHOOL DISTRICT, WORKERS COMPENSATION ADMINISTRATOR, TRANSITIONS MENTAL HEALTH/STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves two consolidated workers' compensation claims for Sally Braithwaite Marshall concerning alleged injuries from "sick building syndrome" and toxic substance exposure. The Appeals Board granted applicant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the trial judge's order to proceed to trial. The Board found that discovery was incomplete, pre-trial statements were not filed, and insufficient notice was given for trial preparation due to the complexity of the consolidated cases. Consequently, the matters are returned to be reset for a mandatory settlement conference, and venue is transferred to the Santa Barbara district office.

Petition for RemovalWCJAgreed Medical EvaluatorDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedMandatory Settlement ConferencePretrial Conference StatementSick Building SyndromeToxic Substances ExposureConsolidation of CasesAutomatic Reassignment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 10,939 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