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. ADJ4019843
Regular
Oct 24, 2009

HENRYCE WOODARD vs. HIGHLANDER CHILDREN'S SERVICES, ACE AMERICAN

This case involves a dispute over the proper venue for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant initially filed in Los Angeles, where her attorney is located, but the defendant objected, arguing venue should be in Riverside where the injury occurred and the applicant resided. The Appeals Board granted the applicant's removal petition, rescinded the prior order changing venue to San Diego, and instead ordered venue transferred to Riverside.

RemovalVenueWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor Code § 5501.5Labor Code § 5501.6WCAB Rule 10410Industrial InjuryApplication for Adjudication of ClaimChange of VenueRiverside County
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Pavilion Place Associates

The case concerns a motion to transfer the Chapter 11 bankruptcy venue of Pavilion Place Associates, a Connecticut limited partnership, from the Southern District of New York to the District of Minnesota. The debtor's sole asset is a shopping center in Roseville, Minnesota. While the debtor's principal place of business, managerial decisions, and financial planning are in New York, the motion was brought by the Trustees of the Central Pension Fund, who are secured creditors. The court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Tina L. Brozman, acknowledged that venue was proper in New York. However, considering factors like the location of the assets, the proximity of the majority of creditors to Minnesota, and the need for economic and efficient administration of the estate, the court granted the motion to transfer the case to the District of Minnesota. The decision emphasized that improved real estate cases are often better administered in the district where the property is located.

Venue TransferBankruptcy Chapter 11Principal Place of BusinessInterest of JusticeConvenience of PartiesSingle Asset Real EstateShopping CenterSecured DebtUnsecured CreditorsJudicial Discretion
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2008

Garced v. Clinton Arms Associates

Plaintiff Troy Garced suffered burn injuries on premises controlled by defendant Clinton Arms Associates, initiating a lawsuit in Bronx County based on his alleged residency there prior to incarceration. The defendant successfully moved to change venue to Nassau County, arguing that the plaintiff lacked proper Bronx residency. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiff's subsequent motion to renew, finding that the new evidence was not sufficiently justified as previously unavailable. The appellate court affirmed the denial of the motion to renew and dismissed the appeal from the initial venue change, concluding that plaintiff failed to establish residency in Bronx County. A dissenting opinion argued that the plaintiff's affidavit and medical records created a factual dispute warranting a hearing on the residency issue.

Venue DisputeResidency RequirementIncarceration ImpactMotion to RenewSection 8 HousingAppellate ReviewBronx CountyNassau CountyPersonal InjuryBurn Injury
References
17
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24190 [84 Misc 3d 497]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2024

Cartwright v. Kennedy

This case addresses a novel question regarding the appropriate venue for challenging an independent designating/nominating petition in an Election Law case, specifically for candidates seeking statewide office. Petitioners, led by Caroline Cartwright, sought to invalidate the nominating petition of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Nicole Shanahan for President and Vice President, alleging fraud and false residency claims. Respondents-candidates moved to change venue from Dutchess County to Albany County, arguing Albany was the proper venue under CPLR 506 (b) and 22 NYCRR 202.64 (a) as the location where the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) makes its determinations. The court determined that CPLR 506 (b) applied, and that "the material events" giving rise to the claims were the filing of the nominating petition and objections with NYSBOE in Albany, and NYSBOE's subsequent actions. Consequently, the court granted the respondents-candidates' motion, ordering the transfer of the case from Dutchess County to Albany County due to improper venue in Dutchess and proper venue in Albany.

Election Law DisputeVenue MotionNominating Petition ValidityCandidate Fraud AllegationsStatewide Political CampaignRobert F. Kennedy Jr. CandidacyNew York State Board of Elections JurisdictionCPLR Article 5Judicial ProcedureDutchess County Supreme Court
References
24
Case No. ADJ12088438
Regular
Dec 03, 2019

Sherice Bellamy vs. Ventura County Community College, Keen & Associates

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding the prior order denying a change of venue. The Board found that the presiding judge incorrectly applied Labor Code section 5501.5 and that Labor Code section 5501.6, which governs petitions for change of venue, was the relevant statute. Consequently, the case was returned to the presiding judge to address the applicant's petition for change of venue under the proper legal framework. A dissenting opinion argued against removal, stating the applicant did not demonstrate good cause or irreparable harm, and could refile a properly supported venue change petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for RemovalChange of VenueLabor Code Section 5501.5Labor Code Section 5501.6Principal Place of BusinessGood CauseSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmDissenting Opinion
References
2
Case No. ADJ8171056
Regular

JUAN ARANA vs. JOHN FREE, dba BELLA CASA

This case concerns a dispute over the proper venue for a workers' compensation claim. The applicant initially chose Oakland as the venue, as it was his attorney's principal place of business. After the employer objected, the judge changed venue to Santa Rosa. The applicant appealed, arguing Oakland is closer to his residence. The Appeals Board granted the petition for removal, rescinded the venue change, and returned the case to the trial level to determine the correct venue based on proximity to the applicant's residence or injury location.

Petition for RemovalOrder Changing VenueLabor Code section 5501.5venue objectionapplicant's residenceinjury locationnearest appeals board officeWCJDecision After Removalrescind
References
0
Case No. Action No. 1 and Action No. 2 Consolidated
Regular Panel Decision

Government Employees Insurance v. Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Co.

This case involves appeals concerning the consolidation and venue of two actions arising from a fatal car accident in Broome County. Plaintiff Paul Schiffman, executor of the deceased Helds' estates, and plaintiff Government Employees Insurance Company (GEICO), the Helds' insurer, initiated separate actions against defendant Uniroyal Goodrich Tire Company in Monroe County. Uniroyal moved to consolidate the actions and change venue to Broome County, citing witness inconvenience. The Supreme Court denied Uniroyal's motion regarding venue. The appellate court found special circumstances warranted deviation from the general venue rules, reversing the lower court's decision and setting venue for the consolidated actions in Broome County. An appeal from a motion for reconsideration was dismissed.

Venue ChangeConsolidationProducts LiabilityNegligenceWrongful DeathFatal AccidentWitness InconvenienceAppellate ReviewDiscretionary AbuseBroome County Venue
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vallecillo v. New York City Department of Corrections

Claimant's counsel, Gerarda M. Rella, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that imposed two $500 penalties. The initial penalty stemmed from a venue request filed without reasonable grounds, seeking a hearing in White Plains despite the claimant residing in Brooklyn and working in Queens, for attorney convenience. The Board affirmed the Workers' Compensation Law Judge's denial of the venue change and the initial penalty. An additional $500 penalty was assessed for a frivolous appeal to the Board. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that Rella's venue request lacked justification and that the Board appropriately exercised its discretion in imposing both penalties, especially given Rella's prior awareness of venue rules in similar matters.

Workers' Compensation LawAttorney MisconductFrivolous AppealVenue RequestMonetary PenaltyAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionProcedural MotionNew York LawAdministrative Law
References
8
Case No. ADJ10962162
Regular
May 17, 2018

ANNA MONTANARO vs. KEY CODE MEDIA, INC., HANOVER INSURANCE GROUP

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed a petition for reconsideration because the order changing venue was not a final decision. The WCAB granted a petition for removal and rescinded the order changing venue to investigate whether the defendant received proper notice and an opportunity to object to the venue change. This due process concern arose because there was no proof of service for the notice of intent to change venue. The matter was returned to the Presiding WCJ for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder Changing VenueNotice of Intent to Change VenueDue ProcessProof of ServiceInterlocutory OrderFinal OrderSubstantive Right
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lipinski v. Skinner

Plaintiff David Lipinski sought permission from the court to file a late notice of claim concerning pendent state claims, asserting violations of his constitutional and common law rights during arrest and confinement. The central issue was whether a federal court could properly entertain this motion under New York State General Municipal Law § 50-e(5). The court examined § 50-e(7), which specifies state supreme or county courts as the proper forums. It distinguished prior federal rulings, noting the 1979 amendment to § 50-e(7) clarified that the designated forum type was distinct from venue provisions. Considering judicial economy and legislative intent, the court found that the legislature intended to increase court accessibility through venue, not by expanding the types of courts that could hear such motions. Consequently, the federal court concluded it lacked jurisdiction over the § 50-e(5) application and denied the plaintiff's motion without prejudice.

Federal jurisdictionState substantive lawGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eLate notice of claimFederal vs State court jurisdictionStatutory interpretationVenue disputeJudicial economyLegislative intentDistrict Court decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,487 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