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
Nov 06, 1997

LaVigna v. Capital Cities/ABC, Inc.

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied plaintiffs' cross-motion for discovery and to amend the complaint. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order. The claims against Capital Cities/ABC, Inc. were dismissed due to the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity rule, as plaintiff Robert LaVigna was an employee. Plaintiffs failed to show deliberate conduct to bypass this rule or wanton behavior for punitive damages. Additionally, plaintiffs did not demonstrate that Lehrer McGovern Bovis, Inc. had knowledge of a defective condition causing fume seepage. The denial of additional discovery was upheld due to lack of diligence, and the motion to add J.T. Falk as a defendant was denied due to the Statute of Limitations and plaintiffs' investigative delinquency.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentDiscoveryComplaint AmendmentStatute of LimitationsUnited in Interest DoctrinePunitive DamagesPremises LiabilityFume ExposureAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 15, 2014

In re the Arbitration between Svenson & Swegan

This case involves an appeal by petitioners from an order and judgment of the Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, which partially denied their application to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration arose from a dispute over the removal of maple trees from property owned by respondents, Richard B. Swegan and Debra A. Dinnocenzo, adjoining the petitioners' parcel. The arbitrator had initially found petitioners liable for trespass and violation of RPAPL 861, awarding treble damages and punitive damages. The Supreme Court subsequently modified the award by vacating the punitive damages provision but otherwise confirmed the award. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, rejecting petitioners' arguments concerning estoppel, misapplication of RPAPL 861, and the punitive nature of treble damages, while also upholding the calculation of interest and dismissing a contention regarding General Obligations Law § 15-108.

Arbitration AwardVacate ArbitrationPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesProperty DisputeTree RemovalTrespassRPAPL 861CPLR 7503Judicial Review
References
17
Case No. 09 Civ. 4376 (GWH) (GWC)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2011

KURUWA v. Meyers

Plaintiffs Dushyant Kuruwa and Monica Arguelles sued attorney Milton Meyers for various claims, including legal malpractice, concerning his failure to handle Kuruwa's immigration paperwork. Meyers did not file Kuruwa's green card application or H1B visa extension, leading to Kuruwa's job termination and the couple incurring costs for voluntary departure from the U.S. The Court entered a default judgment against Meyers due to his repeated non-compliance with court orders and failure to respond to an Order to Show Cause regarding sanctions. Kuruwa was awarded compensatory damages for lost wages and departure expenses, along with punitive damages. Arguelles received nominal and punitive damages, while other claims were dismissed.

Legal MalpracticeAttorney MisconductDefault JudgmentImmigration LawPunitive DamagesBreach of ContractProfessional NegligenceFederal Civil ProcedureVisa StatusGreen Card Application
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. ADJ8429633
Regular
Feb 18, 2015

MARINA SANCHEZ vs. PRUDENTIAL OVERALL SUPPLY, TRISTAR RISK MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Appeals Board granted defendant's Petition for Removal, rescinding the WCJ's order for the claims adjuster to appear and explain his unavailability. The Board found the WCJ exceeded his authority by prejudging the case and ordering the appearance punitively. The matter is returned to the trial level, and the Petition for Disqualification was dismissed as moot. The case is to be heard by a different WCJ to avoid the appearance of bias.

Petition for RemovalPetition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJSanctionsThird Party AdministratorCompromise and ReleaseLien ConferenceInjury AOE/COESubstantial Evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oldroyd v. Elmira Sav. Bank, FSB

Plaintiff Richard Oldroyd brought an action against Elmira Savings Bank (ESB) alleging wrongful termination in violation of the whistleblower protection statute (12 U.S.C. § 1831j) and breach of employment contract. Oldroyd claimed he was fired in retaliation for reporting illegal banking practices to federal authorities. ESB moved for partial summary judgment to dismiss punitive damages claims and to stay proceedings pending arbitration. The court granted in part and denied in part, ordering Oldroyd's breach of contract claim, including the issue of punitive damages, to arbitration. However, Oldroyd's retaliatory discharge claim was found not to be within the scope of the arbitration clause and will proceed in federal court, with the court denying ESB's motion to dismiss punitive damages for this claim and to stay the non-arbitrable claim.

Retaliatory DischargeWhistleblower ProtectionEmployment ContractArbitrationPunitive DamagesFederal Arbitration ActFinancial Institutions Reform, Recovery, and Enforcement Act (FIRREA)Banking LawSummary JudgmentScope of Arbitration
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dubinsky v. Joseph Love, Inc.

A motion seeking an order to affirm a prior order and judgment and to vacate a previous determination and order of the court was considered and denied by the judicial panel. The panel included Justices Martin, Townley, Callahan, and Peck.

Motion PracticeOrder AffirmanceJudgment AffirmancePrior DeterminationOrder VacaturJudicial Panel DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Syrnik v. Polones Construction Corp.

In this memorandum decision and order, the Court addresses defendant Polonés Construction Corporation's motion for a new trial regarding damages awarded to plaintiff Yurek Syrnik. Following a jury trial on discrimination claims under federal and New York state/city laws, Syrnik was awarded $105,981.27 in economic damages and $500,000 in punitive damages. The defendant sought a new trial, challenging both the fact and amount of the punitive damages. The Court denied the motion, finding the defendant's conduct reprehensible and the punitive damages award, which represented a less-than 5:1 ratio to economic damages, was reasonable and not excessive given the circumstances and comparable legal precedents, especially under the New York City Human Rights Law.

DiscriminationPunitive DamagesNew Trial MotionFederal Civil ProcedureEmployment LawJury VerdictCivil Rights ActReprehensibilityExcessive DamagesEconomic Damages
References
11
Case No. 09 C 10580
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2012

Allam v. Meyers

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses Defendant Jason Meyers’ renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law (JMOL) or, alternatively, a motion for a new trial, following a jury verdict entered against him on April 19, 2012. Plaintiff Miryam Al-lam, Meyers' ex-wife, alleged assault, battery, and intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED). The jury awarded Allam $200,000 for pain and suffering and $300,000 in punitive damages. The court granted Meyers' JMOL motion regarding the IIED claim due to insufficient medical evidence, but upheld the jury's liability findings for assault and battery. While denying a new trial on liability for assault and battery, the court granted a new trial on punitive damages, conditioned on Allam's refusal to accept a remittitur reducing the punitive award to $200,000.

AssaultBatteryIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (IIED)Judgment as a Matter of Law (JMOL)New TrialPunitive DamagesCompensatory DamagesDomestic ViolenceJury VerdictRemittitur
References
78
Showing 1-10 of 24,111 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