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

Hason v. Department of Health

The petitioner, a physician, sought review of a determination by the Administrative Review Board for Professional Medical Conduct (ARB) which suspended his medical license. The ARB's decision was based on a prior California Board finding that the petitioner's ability to practice medicine was impaired by mental illness (bipolar affective disorder and narcissistic personality disorder). The court upheld the ARB's finding of professional misconduct, applying collateral estoppel to the California determination. However, the court found the penalty imposed by the ARB—a one-year suspension "and thereafter until such time as [petitioner] can demonstrate his fitness to practice medicine"—was not authorized by Public Health Law § 230-a. Consequently, the court modified the determination by annulling the penalty and remitted the matter to the ARB for the imposition of a statutorily appropriate penalty.

Medical License SuspensionProfessional MisconductPsychiatric ImpairmentMental IllnessBipolar Affective DisorderNarcissistic Personality DisorderCollateral EstoppelArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewPenalty Annulment
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Addei v. State Board for Professional Medical Conduct

A surgeon's medical license was revoked by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct due to findings of moral unfitness from sexual harassment of co-workers and fraudulent practice on employment applications. The petitioner challenged this determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court upheld the Committee's jurisdiction and the findings of moral unfitness and fraud, dismissing claims of statutory vagueness. However, the court deemed the penalty of license revocation excessively harsh and "shocking to one’s sense of fairness" given mitigating factors, equivocal findings on the fraud charge, and no impact on patient care. Consequently, the court indicated that the severe penalty should not stand.

Professional MisconductLicense RevocationMoral UnfitnessFraudulent PracticeSexual HarassmentEmployment ApplicationsDue ProcessVague StatuteDisproportionate PenaltyCPLR Article 78
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Professional Career Center, Inc.

The Professional Career Center, Inc., offering real estate education, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Commissioner of Labor's assessment for additional unemployment insurance contributions. The assessment stemmed from a determination that the Center's teachers were employees, not independent contractors. Despite a consulting agreement, the court found substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship. This was based on the Center's control over hiring, payment, quality, student recruitment, tuition, scheduling, and curriculum adherence. The court concluded that these factors supported the finding, affirming the decision against Professional Career Center, Inc.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorProfessional EducationReal Estate LicensingLabor LawSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewContributionsAudit
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Domino v. Professional Consulting, Inc.

Gregory Domino, a carpenter employed by Carlin Contracting Co., Inc., was injured while working on a Village of Mount Kisco water treatment facility, allegedly due to the installation of floor panels hoisted by a crane owned by Smedley Crane Service, Inc. He and his wife commenced an action for personal injuries against Professional Consulting, Inc. (PCI), the construction manager, and Smedley. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to PCI, finding it was not a "contractor" or "owner" under Labor Law sections 240(1) or 241, nor liable under Labor Law section 200 or common-law negligence due to lack of supervisory authority. The appellate court affirmed this part of the decision, noting PCI's contracts expressly precluded it from supervising the work or safety procedures. However, the Supreme Court erred in granting summary judgment to Smedley, as Smedley failed to establish it lacked authority to control or supervise the crane's rigging activity, thus the appellate court reversed that portion of the decision.

Construction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentReargumentConstruction Manager LiabilityCrane OperationWorker SafetyAgency LawStatutory LiabilityPremises Liability
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04174
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2025

Matter of Black

Attorney Bernard S. Black was disbarred for professional misconduct. Serving as conservator for his sister, who suffers from chronic schizophrenia, Black attempted to divert approximately $1 million from their mother's estate to himself and his children by deliberately withholding information from the Colorado Probate Court. The Colorado courts found he breached his fiduciary duties, engaged in deceptive conduct, and committed civil theft, imposing substantial surcharges and treble damages. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed the Special Referee's findings that Black violated professional conduct rules, including dishonesty, fraud, misrepresentation, making false statements to a tribunal, and engaging in conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Despite his claims of good faith and character evidence, the court found disbarment necessary due to the severe nature of his actions against a vulnerable family member.

Attorney MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsDisbarmentFiduciary Duty BreachConflict of InterestFraud and DeceitFalse Statements to TribunalConservatorshipEstate DiversionCivil Theft
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Avanade, Inc.

Plaintiff Andrew S. Cohen sued his former employer, Avanade Inc., and two employees, Matthew McCafferty and Aziz Virani, alleging breach of contract, fraudulent inducement, malicious conduct, harm to professional reputation, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation. Cohen claimed he was induced into employment by false representations regarding Avanade's application management capabilities, leading to lost sales opportunities and damage to his professional standing. Defendants sought dismissal of the entire complaint. The Court granted the motion, dismissing all claims. It determined the compensation plan was not a binding contract, fraud claims lacked the required specificity, and New York law did not support the malicious conduct or professional reputation claims. Additionally, negligence and negligent misrepresentation claims failed due to the absence of an independent duty or special relationship, and were barred by the Workers' Compensation Law.

Motion to DismissBreach of ContractFraudulent InducementNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationEmployment LawWorkers' Compensation ExclusivityRule 12(b)(6)Rule 9(b)Promissory Estoppel
References
64
Case No. CA 12-01143
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2013

PROFESSIONAL, CLERICAL, TECHNICAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal to the New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, concerning an arbitration award. The petitioner, Professional, Clerical, Technical, Employees Association, sought to vacate an arbitration award, which the Supreme Court, Erie County, initially granted. The respondent, Board of Education for Buffalo City School District, appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, denying the petition to vacate and granting the cross-petition to confirm the arbitration award. The court concluded that the arbitrator's interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement regarding employee qualifications for new positions was neither irrational nor an exceeding of authority. The arbitrator's decision upheld the supervisor's discretion in assessing qualifications beyond minimum requirements for Assistant Management Analyst positions.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewLabor LawAppellate DivisionSupervisor DiscretionEmployee QualificationsContract InterpretationNew York LawSchool District
References
15
Case No. 02 Civ. 8428(DC)
Regular Panel Decision

Professional Sound Services, Inc. v. Guzzi

Plaintiff Professional Sound Services, Inc. (PSS) sued Gotham Sound and Communications, Inc., Roland J. Guzzi, and Peter Schneider, alleging product disparagement and false designation of origin under the Lanham Act, along with several state law claims. PSS contended that Guzzi made disparaging statements about PSS to its customers and that Gotham's use of the letter "S" in its inventory codes constituted trademark infringement of PSS's purported "S" mark. The District Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the Lanham Act claims. The court found that PSS failed to demonstrate widespread dissemination for its disparagement claim and that its "S" mark lacked inherent distinctiveness or secondary meaning necessary for trademark protection. Consequently, the court dismissed the federal claims with prejudice and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Lanham ActProduct DisparagementFalse Designation of OriginTrademark InfringementSummary JudgmentCommercial SpeechDistinctivenessSecondary MeaningLikelihood of ConfusionPolaroid Factors
References
46
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07224 [165 AD3d 1558]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v. Parentis

This case involves an appeal regarding a declaratory judgment action initiated by Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPI) against Michael A. Parentis and others. The dispute arises from a prior medical malpractice verdict against Parentis totaling $8.6 million, which exceeded his combined $2.3 million primary and excess insurance policies from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) and HPI. Parentis alleged bad faith against both insurers for failing to settle the underlying action within policy limits. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to HPI and MLMIC, dismissing Parentis' bad faith claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether both HPI and MLMIC acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations, especially during jury deliberations.

Insurance LawBad Faith Insurance ClaimMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement NegotiationsExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceJury DeliberationsDuty to Settle
References
16
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 06128 [221 AD3d 981]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2023

Hossain v. Condominium Bd. of Grand Professional Bldg.

The plaintiff, Mohammed Iqbal Hossain, initiated legal action to seek damages for personal injuries reportedly sustained while he was engaged in pointing work on a building facade, alleging his rope scaffold malfunctioned and struck the building. The lawsuit claimed violations of Labor Law §§ 240 (1), (2), and 241 (6) against the Condominium Board of Grand Professional Building and G Buddy, Inc. The Supreme Court had previously granted partial summary judgment to the plaintiff on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and (2) and denied the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss claims against G Buddy, Inc. The Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment against G Buddy, Inc. for all specified Labor Law sections, and also denying it against the Condominium Board for Labor Law § 240 (2). However, the court affirmed the summary judgment granted for Labor Law § 240 (1) against the Condominium Board.

Personal InjuryScaffold AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 240(2)Labor Law § 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityAgency
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,726 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