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. 2024 NY Slip Op 04824
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2024

People v. Zubidi

The case of People v Zubidi addresses an appeal of a conviction for criminal possession of a weapon and reckless endangerment. The defendant challenged the lawfulness of the police stop of his van, the probable cause for his arrest, the suggestiveness of a lineup identification, and the excessiveness of his sentences. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the conviction, ruling that the police had reasonable suspicion to stop the defendant's van. This suspicion was based on the van's involvement in a prior road rage incident where a weapon was discharged, and a subsequent incident where the driver fled from a traffic agent. The court reasoned that a logical inference could be drawn that the vehicle's registered owner was likely its driver. When stopped, the defendant resisted, reached for a gun, and pointed it at an officer, providing probable cause for arrest. The court also found the lineup procedure not unduly suggestive. A dissenting opinion argued that reasonable suspicion was lacking due to the absence of prior visual identification of the driver matching the perpetrator's description and the attenuated nature of the owner-driver inference over time.

Criminal Possession of WeaponReckless EndangermentSuppression MotionReasonable SuspicionAutomobile StopProbable Cause for ArrestLineup IdentificationUnduly SuggestiveAppellate ReviewFourth Amendment
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carthew v. County of Suffolk

Plaintiff Christopher Carthew sued Suffolk County and several police entities/officers under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, failure to train, and due process violations, along with state law claims, following his July 2006 arrest for violating an order of protection against his wife, Beth Carthew. The plaintiff alleged lack of probable cause for his arrest after he entered a commercial building he claimed was his business, despite knowing his wife, who had an order of protection against him, was present. The court found that Officer Vezzi had probable cause to arrest Carthew, based on his wife's complaint, the confirmed order of protection, and Carthew's admission of entering the building knowing his wife was inside, thus dismissing the federal § 1983 claims. Even if probable cause were lacking, Officer Vezzi was entitled to qualified immunity because officers of reasonable competence could disagree on whether probable cause existed. Consequently, the federal claims against Suffolk County (Monell claims) were also dismissed due to the lack of an underlying constitutional violation, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityProbable CauseOrder of Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Summary JudgmentMonell ClaimFederal ClaimsState Law Claims
References
86
Case No. ADJ6845087
Regular
Feb 27, 2017

DENNIS DEMARCO vs. PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CMS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration in the case of Dennis Demarco. The defendant failed to meet its burden of proof for apportionment because the medical opinions presented were not sufficiently reasoned or based on reasonable medical probability. The Board adopted the WCJ's reasoning, which found the opinions of the agreed medical evaluators regarding industrial causation for sleep disorders to be persuasive.

ApportionmentMedical OpinionSubstantial EvidenceReasonable Medical ProbabilitySpeculativePertinent FactsAdequate ExaminationIndustrial CausationSleep DisordersAgreed Medical Evaluator (AME)
References
7
Case No. ADJ548925 (MON 0313676) ADJ2470845 (MON 0313677)
Regular
Jul 19, 2010

Barry Robey vs. HERTZ CORPORATION, NATIONAL UNION FIRE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing a lower decision that awarded unapportioned permanent disability. The Board found that the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) apportionment of 50% of the applicant's left hip disability to a non-industrial arthritic condition was substantial medical evidence, despite the WCJ's finding that the AME's reasoning was "arbitrary." The Board emphasized that AME opinions on apportionment need only be based on reasonable medical probability, not certainty, and that the AME sufficiently explained his reasoning.

Workers Compensation Appeals BoardReconsiderationFindings and AwardCumulative TraumaIndustrial InjuryApportionmentAgreed Medical ExaminerPermanent DisabilityNon-industrial CausationLabor Code Section 4663
References
0
Case No. ADJ203059
Regular
Oct 05, 2012

KIRK CARDENAS vs. WARNER BROS. STUDIO FACILITIES, INC.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Warner Bros.' Petition for Reconsideration. The employer sought to overturn a finding that the applicant, Kirk Cardenas, injured his neck in a fall. The Board adopted the Administrative Law Judge's (ALJ) report, which found the Agreed Medical Examiner's (AME) opinion on the neck injury to be substantial medical evidence. The ALJ reasoned that the AME's opinion, despite some gaps in medical records, was based on a reasonable medical probability and that Warner Bros. had not provided sufficient reason to reject it.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAgreed Medical Examinersubstantial medical evidenceneck injuryFall from ladderJourneyman sign painterLawrence Feiwell M.D.upper trapezius atrophyrhomboid region
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2007

State v. Dove

A hearing was held to determine if the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management, presided over by Alexander W. Hunter, Jr., J. The respondent argued a lack of proper notice under Mental Hygiene Law § 10.05 (e), sought to strike statements from the psychiatric examiner, and requested redaction of hearsay within Dr. Lynch's report. The court dismissed the notice-related arguments as moot after proof of delivery was submitted, but granted the redaction of victim statements from presentence and parole reports, citing unreliable multiple hearsay. The court denied challenges to Dr. Lynch's actuarial test results and rejected the respondent's proposed 'more probable than not' standard for probable cause, instead affirming 'reasonable cause to believe.' Ultimately, the court found that the petitioner established probable cause to believe the respondent is a sex offender requiring civil management.

Civil ManagementProbable Cause StandardHearsay EvidenceDue Process RightsMental Hygiene Law Article 10Psychiatric EvaluationActuarial Risk AssessmentBusiness Records ExceptionJurisdictionNotice Requirement
References
7
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 30531(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 2007

Schirmer v. Athena-Liberty Lofts, LP

This case is an appeal from an Order of the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a personal injury action. The plaintiff, a worker at a construction site, sustained injuries, leading to the site owner, Lofts, settling the claim after being found liable under Labor Law § 240 (1). Lofts then pursued indemnity claims against lighting contractor HP and the plaintiff's employer, Burgess. The Appellate Court modified the lower court's decision, vacating the finding that Lofts' settlement amount was reasonable due to Lofts' failure to properly demonstrate reasonableness and its mischaracterization of waiver arguments by HP and Burgess. The Court also affirmed the denial of HP's motion for summary judgment, citing unresolved factual issues concerning inadequate lighting as a cause of the accident.

Personal InjuryConstruction Site AccidentSummary JudgmentIndemnity ClaimLabor Law § 240(1)Appellate DivisionThird-Party ActionSettlement ReasonablenessCross ClaimsInadequate Lighting
References
4
Case No. ADJ10863930
Regular
Aug 05, 2019

BERNARDINO HERNANDEZ vs. HAMMERHEAD AVIATION, PREFERRED EMPLOYERS

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration. The WCAB affirmed the finding that the applicant sustained injuries to his neck, elbows, and bilateral extremities, based on substantial evidence from treating physicians. The Board found the defendant's argument that the medical opinions were conclusory unpersuasive, and the PQME's opinions on causation lacked sufficient reasoning. The applicant's proof of injury arising out of and occurring during employment was found to be reasonably probable.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings of Fact and OrderInjuryNeckElbowsBilateral ExtremitiesPost-termination defenseLabor Code Section 5412Substantial Evidence
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1997

Neblett v. Davis

This case involves an appeal by the New York City Department of Correction, the plaintiff's employer, from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated November 5, 1997. The order granted the plaintiff's motion, permitting her to settle an action for personal injuries for $30,000, pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 29. The Supreme Court affirmed the order, finding no improvident exercise of discretion. The court reasoned that the settlement was reasonable given the low probability of the plaintiff proving causation for her alleged disability from the automobile accident.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationSettlementAppealEmployer LiabilityDisability ClaimAutomobile AccidentCausation DisputeJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 4,472 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