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

Tankleff v. Senkowski

This case involves a criminal defendant seeking habeas corpus relief after a jury trial, challenging several aspects of pre-trial and trial proceedings. The defendant contested issues such as the voluntariness of his confession, the failure to conduct a Batson hearing, alleged Brady violations, and prosecutorial comments. The Court reviewed the defendant's arguments, acknowledging that various State courts had previously denied similar motions. The underlying crime involved the matricide and patricide of the defendant's parents, to which the defendant confessed after receiving Miranda warnings. Despite largely agreeing with the findings of the State Court Judges, the Court ultimately granted the defendant's motion for a certificate of appealability, citing the importance of the case and the severity of the sentence.

habeas corpuscriminal defendantpost-trial proceedingsconstitutional validityBatson challengeBrady violationprosecutorial commentsvoluntary confessionMiranda rightsmurder
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 12, 1998

Quispe v. Lemle & Wolff, Inc.

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a lower court's denial of the defendants' motion for a new trial on liability. The central issue on appeal was the trial court's refusal to admit a hospital triage report into evidence. The report contained conflicting accounts of how the plaintiff sustained injuries, specifically whether she fell from a fire escape or jumped from a window to escape a fire, both from a height of eight feet. The court found the report inadmissible under both the business entry exception to the hearsay rule and as an admission against interest. This was due to the defendants' failure to prove that the plaintiff was the direct source of the recorded information, as the plaintiff spoke only Spanish and the nurse relied on unidentified EMS workers and a hospital translator. Furthermore, the court noted that the cause of the injury was not pertinent to the plaintiff's diagnosis or treatment, which further precluded its admission under the business records exception. The defendants' argument that the translator acted as the plaintiff's agent was also rejected as lacking factual support.

Hearsay RuleBusiness Entry ExceptionAdmission Against InterestHospital Triage ReportMedical Records AdmissibilityTranslation AccuracyInterpreter CompetencyCause of InjuryNew Trial MotionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gayal Realty Corp. v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local 25

The case involves plaintiffs Dans, a general contractor, and G-ayal, a property owner, who sought an injunction against defendant Local #25 I. B. E. W. to halt picketing at a construction site. The picketing, which commenced on August 5, 1963, alleged that electricians were not working under the union's standard wages and conditions, resulting in a significant work stoppage. The defendant moved for dismissal, citing deficiencies in the complaint, non-compliance with the Civil Practice Act, and federal pre-emption under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA). The court determined that the dispute was "arguably subject" to the NLRB's jurisdiction, thereby pre-empting state judicial action, notwithstanding the plaintiffs' arguments that their businesses did not impact interstate commerce. Ultimately, the plaintiffs were granted permission to withdraw their motion and discontinue the action without prejudice, and the previously issued stay on picketing was vacated.

InjunctionLabor DisputeFederal PreemptionNLRB JurisdictionPicketingCivil Practice ActUnion ActivityInterstate CommerceWithdrawal of MotionMootness
References
6
Case No. ADJ9220592
Regular
Apr 29, 2014

LINDA MEISEL vs. KOHL'S DEPARTMENT STORE, NEW HAMPSHIRE INSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Kohl's Department Store's Petition for Removal. The Board found that the defendant's claim of due process violation was unpersuasive, as it is well-established that a judge must inquire into the adequacy of Compromise and Release agreements. The Board noted that the defendant had multiple opportunities to address the adequacy issues and that the upcoming trial on adequacy would provide a forum to present arguments. Finally, the Board ordered that the Pre-Trial Conference Statement be served on the applicant.

Compromise and ReleaseAdequacyPrimary Treating PhysicianPetition for RemovalDue ProcessPre-Trial Conference StatementWalk-throughOff CalendarSupplemental ReportReconsideration
References
7
Case No. ADJ7671523
Regular
Oct 15, 2018

ALFONSO MUNGUIA vs. SBR ROOFING, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration as untimely and not from a final order. However, the WCAB granted the lien claimant's petition for removal, finding that the WCJ's order disallowing the listing of all issues and arguments on the Pre-Trial Conference Statement caused significant prejudice. The WCAB rescinded the WCJ's minute order and returned the matter to the trial level for further proceedings. The claimant's industrial injury case had already been resolved by a Compromise and Release.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalLien ClaimantPre-Trial Conference StatementWCJMinute Orderuntimely petitionfinal ordersubstantive right
References
0
Case No. ADJ9689895
Regular
Sep 19, 2025

ROBERT GONZALES vs. NORTHROP GRUMMAN SERVICES CORPORATION, AIG

The Appeals Board denied Northrop Grumman's petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. The defendant argued the judge erred by not requiring a pre-trial conference statement at the mandatory settlement conference and by setting the matter for trial without notice of issues. However, the Board noted that defendant's own actions invited or waived the alleged error, and a subsequent filing of the statement rendered the argument moot. Removal is an extraordinary remedy, and reconsideration is an adequate remedy for any potential adverse decision.

Petition for RemovalWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJMandatory Settlement ConferencePre-Trial Conference StatementTriable IssuesLabor Code Section 5811WCAB Rule 10515DemurrersPetitions for Judgment on Pleadings
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rowe v. Board of Education

Plaintiff sued Chatham Central School District Middle School for negligence after sustaining injuries from a fall in the school cafeteria, allegedly due to accumulated mud, water, and a lack of rain mats. The defendant School District subsequently impleaded the Chatham Central Teachers’ Association, claiming the Association was in control of the cafeteria and responsible for the plaintiff's injuries. Following a trial, the jury rendered a verdict of no cause for action in favor of both the School District and the Association. However, Special Term set aside this verdict and granted a new trial, based on evidence suggesting an accumulation of mud and water and the defendant's failure to provide janitorial services. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed Special Term's order, reinstating the original jury verdict, concluding that the jury's finding was not against the weight of the evidence given the conflicting testimony presented at trial.

NegligencePremises LiabilitySlip and FallJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewNew Trial Order ReversedSchool CafeteriaChatham Central School DistrictColumbia County
References
3
Case No. ADJ8603938
Regular
Sep 18, 2015

MACARIO IGLESIAS vs. ABE EL PRODUCE, INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's petition for reconsideration, upholding the administrative law judge's exclusion of their exhibits. The exhibits were deemed untimely filed as they were received by the Board less than 20 days before trial, contrary to a pre-trial order. The Board confirmed that the relevant Appeals Board rule regarding filing dates had not been repealed and that the lien claimant failed to meet their burden of proof. A dissenting opinion argued the pre-trial order was potentially ambiguous and that the exhibits should have been admitted given timely service and no prejudice to the defendant.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardLien claimantPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals Judge (WCJ)ExhibitsTimely filedRepealed ruleRule 10392Pre-trial conference
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Drake Bakeries Inc. v. Local 50, American Bakery & Confectionery Workers International

Plaintiff Drake Bakeries, Incorporated, initiated a lawsuit to recover damages for an alleged breach of a "no-strike provision" within a collective bargaining agreement, pursuant to Section 301(a) of the Labor-Management Relations Act. The defendant subsequently filed a motion to stay the trial, seeking to compel arbitration as outlined in the collective bargaining agreement and permitted by the United States Arbitration Act. The plaintiff opposed this motion, arguing that the arbitration provision was permissive, that the union waived its arbitration rights by striking, and that the defendants had waived their rights by failing to initiate arbitration. The Court, however, found no merit in the plaintiff's arguments, concluding that the arbitration provisions were mandatory, a breach of contract does not automatically waive arbitration rights, and the defendants did not waive their rights since the plaintiff, as the aggrieved party, had not attempted to initiate arbitration. Consequently, the Court enforced the arbitration agreement and granted the defendant's motion to stay further proceedings in the suit.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Strike ClauseStay of ProceedingsLabor-Management Relations ActUnited States Arbitration ActContract EnforcementWaiverGrievance ProcedureMandatory Arbitration
References
4
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
Showing 1-10 of 7,943 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