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. 05-13-00748-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2015

Parallel Networks, LLC v. Jenner & Block LLP

Parallel Networks, LLC appealed a trial court's judgment affirming an arbitration award in favor of Jenner & Block, LLP. Parallel argued the termination provision of the contingent fee agreement was unconscionable and against public policy, and that Jenner abandoned its client. The arbitrator found Jenner had just cause to terminate representation due to unpaid expenses and that the termination fee provision was enforceable. The arbitrator also found Jenner was entitled to recover $3,000,000 under quantum meruit or breach of contract, plus a percentage of future settlement proceeds. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, rejecting Parallel's arguments and finding no error in the arbitrator's decision or exclusion of evidence.

Arbitration AwardAttorney FeesContingent Fee AgreementContract TerminationQuantum MeruitPublic PolicyUnconscionabilityLegal MalpracticeBreach of Fiduciary DutyPatent Infringement Litigation
References
13
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. Proceedings No. 1, 2, and 3
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2009

Stewart v. Chautauqua County Board of Elections

This case involves three consolidated proceedings under Election Law article 16 concerning a general election for the position of Chautauqua County Legislator for the Seventh District. The court modified a lower court order, invalidating the J.K. affidavit ballot due to the voter's lack of residency and validating two previously unreadable optical scan ballots, concluding voters did not abandon them. It upheld the validity of the John Doe affidavit ballot, citing a lack of jurisdiction for challenges. The court also affirmed the validity of two absentee ballots despite initial application irregularities and the presence of extrinsic materials. A cross-appeal by Leon H. Beightol regarding the opening and validity of absentee ballots was dismissed in part and denied in part.

Election LawAbsentee BallotsOptical Scan BallotsAffidavit BallotsVoter ResidenceBallot ValidityJudicial EstoppelCross AppealChautauqua CountyGeneral Election
References
25
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 29, 2017

In re U.S. Steel Canada Inc.

U.S. Steel Canada Inc. (USSC), a Canadian subsidiary of U.S. Steel Corporation, initiated a Chapter 15 case in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court on June 2, 2017. The primary objective was to obtain recognition of its Canadian CCAA proceeding as a foreign main proceeding and to enforce the Sanction Order and the associated reorganization plan approved by the Canadian Court. No objections were raised to the requested relief. Following a hearing on June 29, 2017, the Court granted all requests, recognizing the CCAA proceeding and enforcing the Sanction Order and Plan. The Court's decision was based on USSC meeting Chapter 15 eligibility requirements, including having property in the U.S., and confirmed that the CCAA proceeding was a foreign main proceeding with USSC's center of main interests (COMI) in Canada.

Chapter 15 BankruptcyForeign Main ProceedingCross-Border InsolvencyCCAA ProceedingSanction OrderReorganization PlanInternational ComityBankruptcy Code Section 109(a)Center of Main Interests (COMI)Debtor Eligibility
References
50
Case No. 267 AD2d 668
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1999

In re the Arbitration between Civil Service Employees Ass'n & State

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court concerning two proceedings. Proceeding No. 1, initiated by Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (CSEA) on behalf of Garmon Carnibucci, sought to confirm an arbitration award regarding the restoration of sick leave accruals for Carnibucci, who was terminated by the Division For Youth (DFY) under Civil Service Law § 71. Proceeding No. 2, commenced by Carnibucci, sought to hold DFY in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a prior judgment mandating back pay and benefits. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and found no contempt, prompting an appeal from the petitioners. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in proceeding No. 1, determining that CSEA was not an aggrieved party since the relief it sought (confirmation of the award) was granted. In proceeding No. 2, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the appointment of a Referee to assess back pay calculations and concluding that DFY was not in contempt due to the lack of specificity in the prior judgment regarding the computation of back pay.

arbitration awardback pay disputesick leave accrualscontempt proceedingCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Civil Service Lawpublic employmentworkers' compensation boardjudicial review
References
7
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. 23723/08
Regular Panel Decision

Marcus v. Quattrocchi

A case where plaintiffs Katheryn Marcus and Sarah Goldberg sought to remand their case, Marcus v. Quattrocchi, back to state court after its removal to federal court by defendants Lisa Quattrocchi, Amy Aronson, Clifford Aronson, George Siegel, and Albert Flieschman. Plaintiffs argued for remand based on the probate exception to federal jurisdiction, an unascertainable amount in controversy, and the existence of a parallel state court proceeding. The Court, presided over by Judge Kenneth M. Karas, denied the motion. It determined that the probate exception did not apply because the claims sought personal damages, not estate administration or control over state-custodied property. The Court also found that the amount in controversy exceeded the $75,000 jurisdictional threshold, noting the plaintiffs' claim for "millions of dollars" in damages. Finally, the Court dismissed the abstention argument as the alleged parallel state proceeding had been dismissed.

Probate ExceptionSubject Matter JurisdictionDiversity JurisdictionMotion to RemandBreach of Fiduciary DutyTrust MisappropriationAmount in ControversyAbstention DoctrineParallel ProceedingsFederal Jurisdiction
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Slocum v. Joseph B.

This case concerns a filiation proceeding initiated by Nathan A.'s court-appointed Law Guardian to establish paternity and secure support from the respondent. The respondent argued that the proceeding was barred by res judicata due to a prior 1977 Family Court order dismissing a similar paternity petition brought by Nathan's mother. The central legal question revolves around whether Nathan is in privity with his mother, thus precluding his current claim. The court adopted a flexible approach to privity, considering the parties' actual relationship, mutual interests, and the adequacy of representation in the prior litigation. It was determined that, under the Family Court Act at the time of the prior proceeding, the mother adequately represented the child's interests. Consequently, the court found that privity existed, and the current petition is barred by res judicata, leading to the reversal of the lower court's order and dismissal of the petition.

Filiation ProceedingPaternityRes JudicataPrivityFamily LawChild SupportLaw GuardianFunctional RepresentationCollateral EstoppelFamily Court Act
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 9,151 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