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

In re the Arbitration between State of New York Office of Mental Health & New York State Correctional Officers & Police Benevolent Ass'n

Judge Mugglin dissents from the majority's decision, which concluded that the arbitrator committed misconduct by excluding pertinent evidence, specifically respondent Taras Neznanyj’s convictions, leading to an irrational factual conclusion. The dissenting judge argues that prejudicial arbitral misconduct was not a basis urged by the petitioner for vacating the award, and an arbitrator only exceeds their power if the award violates public policy, is irrational, or exceeds a specific limitation. The judge contends that the arbitrator acted within their broad powers by choosing not to consider the criminal convictions, as they were not the basis for the original charges, and instead conducted a de novo review, hearing testimony from multiple witnesses. Furthermore, the dissent asserts that arbitrators are not legally required to give collateral estoppel effect to criminal convictions, thus the failure to admit certificates of conviction, when underlying evidence was heard, does not constitute prejudicial misconduct or render the award irrational.

ArbitrationArbitrator MisconductCollateral EstoppelCPLR 7511Vacating Arbitration AwardDe Novo ReviewEvidence ExclusionCriminal ConvictionsAppellate DissentScope of Arbitrator's Power
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Avila-Blum v. Casa de Cambio Delgado, Inc.

In this case, District Judge Marrero reviewed the defendants' objections to a protective order issued by Magistrate Judge Andrew Peek. The protective order barred defendants from inquiring into plaintiff Monica Avila-Blum's immigration status during her deposition, citing the prejudicial effect and minimal relevance at the liability stage, and the chilling effect on undocumented workers pursuing employment claims. Defendants argued that the Magistrate Judge erred in applying case law and in limiting the inquiry to the damages phase, asserting its relevance to credibility and citing Hoffman Plastic Compounds, Inc. v. NLRB. Judge Marrero affirmed the Magistrate Judge's order, finding it was not clearly erroneous or contrary to law, agreeing that the potential for prejudice and the questionable probative value outweighed the defendants' discovery interests at the liability stage. The court also clarified that Hoffman Plastic was distinguishable and limited in scope. Consequently, the defendants' objections were denied, upholding the protective order.

Protective OrderImmigration StatusDiscovery LimitsCredibility EvidencePrejudicial EvidenceFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureEmployment DiscriminationUndocumented WorkersDistrict Court ReviewMagistrate Judge Order
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moskal v. Fleet Bank

Plaintiff Mark Moskal, a jeweler, was robbed in Fleet Bank's basement vault area after being directed by a security guard to use a stairwell due to elevator renovations. Moskal and his wife sued Fleet Bank, the building owner (UOB Realty), managing agent (Axiom Real Estate), security company (Effective Security Systems, Inc.), and contractor (Interior Construction Company), alleging negligence for failure to protect him from foreseeable danger. The court granted summary judgment to UOB, Axiom, Security, and Interior, finding the attack unforeseeable by them and no duty owed. However, Fleet Bank's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, as the court found questions of fact for a jury regarding Fleet's potential duty to Moskal, given its awareness of the stairwell's danger and its specific policy prohibiting customer use, which was allegedly disregarded.

ForeseeabilityNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentDuty of CareCriminal Act of Third PersonsBank SecurityStairwell DangerConstruction NegligenceRobbery
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 1995

Brier v. City University

The respondent City University of New York's determination, dated August 13, 1995, to dismiss the petitioner from his role as Administrative Superintendent of Campus Buildings and Grounds at Lehman College, effective September 8, 1995, was unanimously confirmed. The petition was denied, and the CPLR article 78 proceeding, transferred from the Supreme Court, New York County, was dismissed. The court found that respondent's conclusions regarding the petitioner's failure to report lost keys, ensure proper facility cleaning and maintenance, and general incompetence were supported by substantial evidence, including testimony from the petitioner, superiors, and co-workers. No grounds were found to overturn the respondent's credibility assessments, and the penalty of dismissal was deemed appropriate, especially considering the petitioner's prior disciplinary history.

Public EmploymentAdministrative LawEmployee MisconductWorkplace DisciplineJudicial ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingLehman CollegeCity University of New YorkTermination of EmploymentSubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Majid v. Fielitz

Abdul Majid, an inmate at Green Haven Correctional Facility, initiated this 42 U.S.C. § 1983 action against correctional officers Ralph Fielitz and Robert Acken, alleging assault during his transfer and subsequent fraudulent concealment of evidence. Defendants moved in limine to exclude evidence related to the fraudulent concealment claims, contending its irrelevance to disputed facts and its prejudicial effect. The court, presided over by District Judge Sweet, denied the motion. The decision states that the evidence is relevant to the issue of equitable tolling of the statute of limitations regarding Acken's identity, which is an issue for the court to resolve, not a jury. A subsequent Rule 403 determination will be made if equitable tolling is found.

Inmate RightsPrison AssaultFraudulent ConcealmentEquitable TollingStatute of Limitations42 U.S.C. 1983Correctional FacilityVideo EvidenceMotion in LimineFederal Procedure
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cabrera v. Schafer

Plaintiff Efrain Reyes Cabrera sued his former employers, Thomas Schafer and Dream Team Tavern Corp., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act and New York Labor Law for unpaid overtime and improper wage notice. The Defendants denied these claims. The Court denied the Defendants' motions in limine, which sought judicial notice of Workers’ Compensation Board findings and admission of allegedly forged immigration documents to impeach the Plaintiff’s credibility. The Court found the request for judicial notice improper as it sought to establish the truth of disputed facts from another case, and the immigration documents, while potentially relevant to credibility, were highly prejudicial and could have a chilling effect on other employees.

FLSANYLLWage and HourOvertimeMotions in LimineJudicial NoticeCredibilityImmigration StatusFederal Rules of EvidenceRule 201
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04237
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2017

People v. Saigo

The defendant, Tysean Saigo, was convicted of attempted robbery in the first degree. The conviction stemmed from an incident where Saigo allegedly stole sunglasses and threatened a store clerk with a knife and gun. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the conviction, finding that the trial court's jury instruction on attempted robbery in the first degree was erroneous. The instruction failed to include the essential element of actual possession of a dangerous instrument, which is judicially engrafted onto Penal Law § 160.15 (3). Given that the jury acquitted Saigo of criminal possession of a weapon, the appellate court concluded that the incorrect charge had a prejudicial effect and exercised its interest-of-justice jurisdiction to remand the matter for a new trial.

Attempted RobberyJury Instruction ErrorDangerous InstrumentActual PossessionInterest of JusticeRemand for New TrialPenal Law § 160.15 (3)Criminal Possession of a WeaponAppellate ReviewFelony Offender
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Drake

The dissenting opinion in People v. Paris Drake argues that the trial court made two significant errors. Firstly, the court improperly instructed the jury that expert testimony on eyewitness identification, provided by Dr. Elizabeth Loftus, could not be used to discredit or accredit eyewitness accounts. This instruction, according to the dissent, effectively negated the defense's ability to challenge the reliability of crucial eyewitness testimony. Secondly, the dissent contends that the trial court erred by refusing an in camera review of a key eyewitness's psychiatric records, which could have shed light on her perception given her medication for anxiety. These errors, the dissent concludes, were prejudicial and warrant a reversal of the conviction for first-degree assault and third-degree criminal possession of a weapon.

Eyewitness IdentificationExpert Witness TestimonyJury InstructionsRight to Confront WitnessesPsychiatric Records ConfidentialitySixth AmendmentCriminal AssaultCriminal Possession of WeaponMemory RetentionPrejudicial Error
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Bradley

This case concerns the appeal of a defendant, Bradley, convicted of first-degree manslaughter, who claimed self-defense against her estranged boyfriend, Joseph Wilburn. She argued that her actions were influenced by post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and battered woman syndrome (BWS), stemming from a history of abuse. The prosecution introduced evidence of a prior uncharged incident where the defendant had stabbed an unidentified man in the thigh. The Court of Appeals reversed the conviction and ordered a new trial, holding that the admission of the prior stabbing incident was an error. The Court found this "Molineux" evidence lacked sufficient probative value to disprove the defendant's specific state of mind regarding justification, and its prejudicial effect, suggesting a propensity for violence, outweighed its relevance. The lack of context for the prior stabbing made it unreliable for inferring motivation in the current case.

ManslaughterSelf-defenseBattered Woman SyndromePTSDMolineux EvidencePrior Bad ActsPropensity EvidencePrejudicial ErrorReversalNew Trial
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 [161 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Machado

This case involves reciprocal discipline against attorney Esmeralda Machado. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought to discipline Machado based on a New Jersey Supreme Court order permanently barring her from appearing pro hac vice due to unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Machado had repeatedly failed to pay required fees, continued to practice in New Jersey despite her pro hac vice admission terminating, misused another attorney's letterhead, and made false statements in a divorce proceeding. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending Machado from the practice of law in New York for two years, effective June 11, 2018. The court found her misconduct in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York.

Attorney MisconductUnauthorized Practice of LawReciprocal DisciplineProfessional EthicsSuspensionNew Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingsFalse StatementsFraudDishonestyAppellate Division First Department
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 955 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