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

Jackson v. Cassellas

In a sex discrimination case that resulted in a successful settlement for the plaintiff, Ms. Jackson, her attorney, William A. Price, Esq., sought an award for attorney fees and expenses. The defendant, EEOC, objected to the fee application due to concerns about the hourly rate, lack of contemporaneous records, and vague work descriptions. Presiding Judge Curtin, after considering the complexities of the case, Mr. Price's integrity, and the issues with document production, determined that a 15% reduction for vagueness and record-keeping deficiencies was warranted. However, the court also awarded a 10% bonus for the excellent results achieved and the difficulties encountered, resulting in a net 5% reduction. The final award for attorney fees was $291,405.85, with an additional $14,785.77 reimbursed for costs.

Attorney FeesSex DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1991Lodestar MethodHourly Rate CalculationContemporaneous RecordsVagueness of RecordsFee ReductionFee EnhancementSettlement Agreement
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. New York City Department of Transportation

The claimant, who sustained work-related injuries on December 20, 2011, retained Joel Fredericson as a licensed representative. Fredericson initially received a $2,450 fee in 2012. After further proceedings and an award of $202,689.44 to the claimant, Fredericson applied for an additional fee of $28,000 for 61 hours of work. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) subsequently awarded Fredericson $10,700. Fredericson appealed this to the Workers’ Compensation Board, requesting an increase to $16,500. The Board, however, reduced his fee to $450, citing an insufficient and inaccurate fee application (form OC-400.1) with significant discrepancies compared to his earlier submission. This court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion in approving counsel fees and upholding the reduction due to the severe deficiencies in Fredericson's fee application.

Fee DisputeAttorney FeesRepresentative FeesWorkers' Compensation LawBoard DiscretionFee ApplicationForm OC-400.1Counsel FeesAppellate ReviewSchedule Loss of Use
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colucci v. New York Times Co.

The defendant, The New York Times, moved for attorneys' fees after successfully defending against the plaintiff's reverse sex discrimination and retaliation claims. The Court found the plaintiff's claims, particularly regarding discrimination (failure to apply, lack of qualifications) and retaliation (no factual basis), to be frivolous and groundless. Consequently, the Court awarded the defendant $1,500 in attorneys' fees, a reduction from the requested $33,175, acknowledging the plaintiff's limited financial capacity (earning $19,000 in 1981 with dependents). Additionally, the defendant sought to impose fees on the plaintiff's attorney for vexatiously multiplying proceedings under 28 U.S.C. § 1927. However, the Court denied this motion, finding no evidence of bad faith or egregious conduct from the attorney regarding the interrogatories, proof presentation, or communication with the court.

Reverse Sex DiscriminationRetaliationAttorneys' FeesTitle VIIFrivolous ClaimsVexatious LitigationSanctionsJudicial DiscretionPrevailing PartyFinancial Hardship
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 31, 2010

Handschu v. Special Services Division

This Memorandum Opinion and Order addresses a motion for attorneys' fees filed by Class Counsel in a civil rights action, Handschu v. Police Dept. of the City of New York. The plaintiff class was previously deemed the prevailing party on a significant issue, entitling them to attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b), payable by the City of New York. The Court, presided over by Senior District Judge Haight, reviewed Class Counsel's fee application, finding an hourly rate of $400 for each of the five experienced attorneys to be reasonable. However, the Court applied several reductions: a 30% reduction for the degree of success achieved, a 10% reduction for failure to maintain fully compliant contemporaneous time records, and a 10% reduction for overstaffing and duplication of effort. Fees related to a sanction imposed on Corporation Counsel for late disclosure were exempt from these reductions. The City of New York was directed to pay the adjusted fee awards and expenses by August 31, 2010.

Attorneys' Fees MotionCivil Rights ActionPrevailing Party DoctrineFee ReductionBilling JudgmentContemporaneous Time RecordsOverstaffingSanctions for MisconductPolice SurveillanceEquitable Power
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 30, 2015

Matter of Curcio v. Sherwood 370 Management LLC

The claimant, a building engineer, sustained a work-related back and neck injury, initially classified as a permanent total disability by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) with awarded counsel fees. The Workers' Compensation Board (Board) modified this, finding a permanent partial disability with a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity and reduced counsel fees due to an improperly completed application. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, citing substantial medical evidence supporting a partial disability and a 90% loss of wage-earning capacity based on the claimant's age, education, work history, and functional abilities. The court also upheld the reduction of counsel fees due to the attorney's failure to accurately complete the required fee application form.

Permanent Partial DisabilityWage-Earning Capacity LossWorkers' Compensation BenefitsCounsel FeesMedical EvidenceVocational FactorsOC-400.1 ApplicationAdministrative AppealAppellate DivisionMedical Impairment Guidelines
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Shaffer

Plaintiffs New York State Association of Realtors, Inc. and Clifford Hall moved the Court for an order granting them attorneys’ fees and costs, together with post-judgment interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. This motion followed a successful appeal to the Second Circuit, which reversed a prior District Court decision, finding a New York State nonsolicitation regulation unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The defendant argued for a 50% reduction in fees, citing the plaintiffs' partial success. However, Judge Spatt of the Eastern District of New York found the overall relief obtained by the plaintiffs to be significant and approved the requested attorneys' fees and expenses, totaling $81,196.27.

Attorneys' FeesCivil Rights LitigationFirst Amendment RightsCommercial SpeechReal Estate LawNonsolicitation RegulationsBlockbustingLodestar MethodSummary JudgmentAppellate Procedure
References
20
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05964 [209 AD3d 596]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2022

Pirozzo v. Laight St. Fee Owner LLC

Plaintiff Paul Pirozzo sought summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim against defendants Laight Street Fee Owner LLC, Laight Street Fee Owner II LLC, and Sciame Construction, LLC, which was granted by the Supreme Court. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision. The plaintiff established a prima facie case by demonstrating that the scaffold he was working on collapsed without an apparent reason. The defendants' arguments that the plaintiff was the sole proximate cause, either by failing to lock scaffold pins or remaining on the scaffold while it was moved, were deemed unavailing. The court noted that these actions, even if proven, would amount to comparative negligence, which is not a defense to a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, and there was no evidence of specific instructions to the plaintiff that were disobeyed.

Summary judgmentLabor Law § 240 (1)Scaffold collapseSole proximate causeComparative negligenceWorkers' compensation Form C-2Hearsay objectionPersonal knowledgeRecalcitranceAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tokyo Electron Arizona, Inc. v. Discreet Industries Corp.

This order addresses the plaintiff Tokyo Electron Arizona's (TAZ) application for reasonable attorney's fees and costs against defendants Discreet Industries and Ovadia Meron (Discreet), pursuant to Federal Rule 37. The court determines the appropriate award by assessing the reasonableness of hourly rates and hours expended, applying the lodestar method. While acknowledging the high caliber of work, the court reduced Mr. Haug's hourly rate and applied a 10% overall reduction to the billed hours to account for potential overlap. Additionally, the court found TAZ's copying and transcript costs reasonable and partially awarded costs for a computer-generated Power Point presentation. Ultimately, TAZ was awarded $55,751.79 in fees and $5386.19 in costs, totaling $61,137.98.

Attorney's FeesCostsDiscovery SanctionsFederal Rule 37Lodestar MethodHourly RatesReasonable HoursEastern District of New YorkSouthern District of New YorkWork Product Doctrine
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baird v. Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP

Plaintiffs Rachel M. Baird and Bonnie Porter sued their former employer, Boies, Schiller & Flexner LLP, alleging gender discrimination for being placed on a 'non-partnership track' while men were on a 'partnership track.' They initially sought $1.25 million but accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment for $37,500 each, plus reasonable attorneys' fees and costs. The court found them 'prevailing parties' but significantly reduced their requested attorneys' fees of $191,048.33 to $54,723.93, and costs to $7,506.23. This reduction was due to their limited success and weak evidence supporting their discrimination and constructive discharge claims. The court noted inconsistencies in Baird's deposition and Porter's personal reasons for leaving the firm, suggesting they realized their unlikelihood of prevailing.

gender discriminationequal pay actTitle VIINew York State Human Rights Lawattorneys' feesRule 68 offer of judgmentprevailing partylodestar calculationlimited successfee reduction
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 08, 1996

Prior v. County of Saratoga

Plaintiff commenced an action alleging excessive force during his arrest by Shawn Nolan and Keith Clinton of the Saratoga County Sheriff’s Department, claiming battery and Federal civil rights violations under the 4th, 5th, and 14th Amendments. A jury found Nolan used excessive force but did not intentionally violate plaintiff's rights, awarding $5,000 for pain and suffering and $429.66 for medical expenses. Plaintiff then moved for counsel fees as a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988, and Supreme Court awarded $7,500. Both parties appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the plaintiff was a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1988 because his Federal constitutional claims met the two-pronged Gibbs test, and the reduction of the requested counsel fee was an appropriate exercise of discretion given the limited success on the nonconstitutional issue.

Excessive ForceCivil Rights4th Amendment5th Amendment14th AmendmentBatteryCounsel FeesPrevailing PartyFederal ClaimsState Claims
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 2,915 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