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

People v. Comfort

The defendant, convicted in 1982 of murder, attempted murder, and drug charges, had some of his murder convictions later reversed on appeal. He subsequently filed multiple CPL article 440 motions to set aside his sentence, alleging ineffective assistance of counsel due to a conflict of interest and a failure to pursue defenses, and arguing that he was incompetent to stand trial. The court denied his motions to vacate the judgment, finding no sufficient evidence of incompetency and that prior arguments regarding counsel were procedurally barred or refuted by court records. However, the appellate court reversed the portion of the order that resentenced the defendant, noting he was resentenced in his absence and the People conceded the need for resentencing. The case was remitted to the Steuben County Court for resentencing, with discretion to order an updated presentence investigation report.

ResentencingCriminal Procedure LawIneffective Assistance of CounselCompetency to Stand TrialConflict of InterestAppellate ReviewDrug ChargesMurderAttempted MurderPrior Convictions
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fey v. Stengle

The Workers’ Compensation Board issued an award against Kings Moving and Storage, Inc., requiring payments to the Uninsured Employers’ Fund and Vocational Rehabilitation Fund, stemming from an accident involving the plaintiff’s decedent. This award established accident, notice, and causal relation to death, inferring the accident occurred during the decedent's employment with Kings. Subsequently, the Appellate Division found that the defendants' motion to renew their summary judgment application should have been granted following the Board's decision. Consequently, the court reversed the order denying the motion and remitted the matter to Special Term. The plaintiff was granted 20 days to amend their complaint to allege failure to secure compensation under Workers' Compensation Law Section 11; otherwise, summary judgment would be granted to defendants Kings and Stengle.

Workers' CompensationUninsured Employers' FundVocational Rehabilitation FundSummary JudgmentRemittalAppellate DivisionExclusive RemedyEmployment RelationshipPleading AmendmentCausal Relation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eggleston v. Richardson

The petitioner, a child protective caseworker, sought annulment of her dismissal from civil service. Respondent adopted the hearing officer's findings of guilt on 17 charges. The court reviewed the findings for substantial evidence and the proportionality of the dismissal. It found 14 charges supported but dismissed charges related to unsupported specifications and hearsay evidence, including a serious charge of disclosing a complainant's identity. While the petitioner's misconduct, including abrasiveness and insubordination, was acknowledged, and dismissal wasn't disproportionate to the demonstrated offenses, the matter was remitted to the respondent for penalty reassessment as the administrative agency holds that responsibility.

Civil Service DismissalChild Protective CaseworkerArticle 78 ProceedingSubstantial Evidence ReviewHearsay EvidencePenalty DisproportionateRemittal for PenaltyAdministrative Agency ResponsibilityMisconductInsubordination
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Weech

The case involves an appeal from a defendant's murder conviction where the case was remitted to Trial Term to reconstruct the defendant's competency to stand trial. Two psychiatrists, Dr. Wellington Reynolds and Dr. Odysseus Adamides, assessed the defendant's competency based on various reports and observations. Dr. Reynolds had examined the defendant prior to trial. The defendant challenged Dr. Reynolds' credentials, asserting he was not a "qualified psychiatrist" under CPL 730.10(5)(a). The court previously remitted the case for a reconstruction proceeding. This current decision remits the matter once more for an adversary inquiry into the defendant's competency, clarifying that Dr. Reynolds' testimony, even if not from a "qualified psychiatrist," is admissible, and other professionals like the social worker, nurse, defense counsel, and Trial Judge could also testify.

Competency to Stand TrialReconstruction ProceedingPsychiatric EvaluationCriminal Procedure LawAdmissibility of Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewDue ProcessMental Health ServicesDefendant's RightsMurder Second Degree
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Seminerio v. Seminerio

In an appeal concerning a divorce and ancillary relief, the defendant contested awards for maintenance, pension benefits, and attorney's fees. The appellate court modified the judgment by deleting the plaintiff's $800 per month maintenance payments. The decision was affirmed in part and remitted to the Supreme Court, Queens County, for further proceedings. The court found that the trial court erred in precluding testimony regarding the defendant's anticipated retirement, which should be considered when determining maintenance amount under Domestic Relations Law § 236 (B) (6) (a). The matter was remitted to admit evidence of the defendant's future earning capacity and the plaintiff's expenses to properly determine maintenance.

DivorceMaintenance PaymentsSpousal SupportAncillary ReliefAppealMarital ResidenceEarning CapacityRetirement BenefitsJudicial ErrorRemittitur
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coe v. House Inside, Ltd.

The claimant appealed decisions by the Workmen's Compensation Board regarding accidental injuries. She suffered injuries in 1967 from a fall on her employer's truck and filed both a compensation claim and a negligence action. The Board decided the compensation claim despite her request to delay, which subsequently barred her civil suit. An initial appeal to this court was dismissed, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remitted the case. This court now finds that the fundamental issue of the Board's refusal to withhold its decision, and whether it was arbitrary, must be resolved before reaching the merits. Consequently, the decision is reversed, and the matter is remitted to the Workmen's Compensation Board for further proceedings to develop the record on this specific issue.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewJurisdictionCivil Action BarRemandArbitrary DecisionClaimant's RightsBoard DiscretionProcedural IssueScope of Employment
References
4
Case No. No. 780
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2012

Konstantin v. 630 Third Avenue Associates

Ruby Konstantin and Doris Kay Dummitt sued Tishman Liquidating Corporation (TLC) and Crane Co., respectively, for mesothelioma caused by asbestos exposure at construction sites and on Navy vessels. The cases were consolidated for trial, resulting in large jury awards against TLC (76% liable) and Crane Co. (99% liable), which were subsequently remitted by the trial court. On appeal, the court affirmed the consolidation, citing sufficient commonalities in exposure and rejecting arguments of prejudice despite differing legal theories. The court also upheld the jury's findings of negligence and recklessness against both defendants, affirming the apportionment of liability and the remitted damage awards.

Asbestos exposureMesotheliomaConsolidation of casesLabor LawProduct liabilityFailure to warnNegligenceProximate causeApportionment of liabilityDamages remittitur
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 1989

Bubnell v. Holmes Ambulance Service Corp.

The defendant appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which had declared a mistrial and referred the workers' compensation defense to the Workers' Compensation Board. The core issue on appeal was whether the defendant was an alter ego of the plaintiffs' employer, thereby being immune from a personal injury suit under workers' compensation law. While acknowledging that mixed questions of law and fact regarding workers' compensation are typically remitted to the Board, the appellate court found it an improvident exercise of discretion to further delay a long-standing case for the Board's determination of an issue readily resolvable by the trial court. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

personal injuryworkers' compensation defensealter ego doctrinemistrialappellate reversalremittaljudicial discretionmixed question of law and factlitigation delaytrial proceedings
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 1990

Neumark v. Neumark

In a matrimonial action, the defendant former husband appealed and the plaintiff wife cross-appealed from portions of an order and judgment concerning the division of marital assets and maintenance. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially directed the husband to convey his interest in the marital residence, pay accrued arrears of $101,535.91, and $61,369.93 in pension benefits, and reduced maintenance to $800 a month. The Appellate Court modified the order, deleting the pension benefit award and remitting for a determination of present value. Maintenance was further reduced to $500 a month, and accrued arrears for the plaintiff were adjusted to $99,255.91. The case was remitted to the Supreme Court for further proceedings.

Matrimonial ActionDivorceMaintenance ArrearsPension BenefitsMarital ResidenceEquitable DistributionDownward ModificationChange of CircumstancesAppellate ReviewCross-Appeal
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1956

Gluckstern v. Gluckstern

In this separation case, the Special Term initially granted a decree of separation to the plaintiff wife and awarded her custody of their six-year-old son. The appellate court found it difficult to assess the parents' qualifications solely from the record. It suggested that a thorough investigation by a trained social worker, available through the newly established Special Term, Part XII (Family Part), could help resolve doubts regarding custody. Consequently, the amended judgment of February 17, 1956, was modified, remitting the custody decision back to the trial justice for utilization of these services. Additionally, a motion to amend support and maintenance provisions was also remitted, pending the final custody decision.

SeparationChild CustodyRemittalJudicial ReviewSocial Worker InvestigationFamily LawAppellate DivisionSpecial TermParental FitnessSupport and Maintenance
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,231 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