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. 2019 NY Slip Op 01179 [169 AD3d 527]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 2019

Matter of People v. Northern Leasing Sys., Inc.

This case involves an appeal concerning motions to dismiss various claims against Northern Leasing Systems, Inc., et al. (Northern Respondents) and Joseph I. Sussman, P.C., et al. (Attorney Respondents). The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the Northern Respondents' motion to dismiss Executive Law § 63 (12) and CPLR 5015 (c) claims related to General Business Law § 349 violations but denied it for other claims. The court also granted the Attorney Respondents' motion to dismiss all claims against them. The Appellate Division modified this, denying the Attorney Respondents' motion except for the General Business Law § 349 claim, and affirmed the rest. The petition failed to state a cause of action under General Business Law § 349 as the affected parties were not 'consumers'. The court found that ISO sales representatives acted as Northern Respondents' agents, and both Northern Respondents' and Attorney Respondents' conduct fell within the 'sham exception' to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. Furthermore, the Executive Law § 63 (12) claim, based on unconscionable contract terms and targeting vulnerable individuals, was deemed to state a cause of action, and Neil Hertzman was found to have participated in the fraud scheme.

Appellate DivisionMotion to DismissGeneral Business Law § 349Executive Law § 63 (12)CPLR 5015 (c)Business Corporation Law § 1101FraudAgency LawSham ExceptionNoerr-Pennington Doctrine
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. E. W. Smith Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted a petitioner-respondent's application to stay arbitration demanded by respondents-appellants concerning obligations to welfare and pension funds under a collective bargaining agreement. This judgment was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the broad arbitration provision in the agreement meant issues regarding contract termination, modification, or renewal were properly for the arbitrators to decide. Furthermore, the court found that disputes over obligations arguably created by an expired agreement would still be within the arbitrators' jurisdiction. The appellate court also dismissed the petitioner-respondent's contention regarding the respondents-appellants' lack of standing. Consequently, the motion for a stay was denied, and the parties were directed to arbitrate.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWelfare FundsPension FundsContract DisputesAppellate ReviewLabor LawFederal PreemptionStandingJudicial Reversal
References
10
Case No. CA 10-02172
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

NEW YORK SCHOOLS INSURANCE RECIP, MTR. OF

The petitioner, New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition for a permanent stay of arbitration. Respondent Patricia Armitage sought arbitration after the petitioner denied her claim for no-fault insurance benefits. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the dispute involving the insurer's liability to pay first-party benefits is a matter for arbitration under Insurance Law § 5106 [b]. The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the offset for workers' compensation benefits exceeding the monthly limit is not arbitrable and that the denial of a stay of arbitration denied its right to a loss-transfer claim from proposed additional respondents.

No-fault insuranceArbitrationWorkers' compensation offsetFirst-party benefitsAppellate reviewInsurance LawStay of arbitrationLoss-transfer claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Willard L.

Respondent's two children were removed from his care in 2002 due to incidents of domestic violence, drug use, and violations of protection orders. The petitioner subsequently initiated a proceeding to adjudicate the children as permanently neglected and to terminate respondent's parental rights, which the Family Court granted. On appeal, the court found that the petitioner made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship by offering numerous counseling and treatment opportunities and arranging supervised visitation. However, the respondent failed to plan for his children's future by not correcting the conditions that led to their removal and not benefiting from the services provided due to his unwillingness to change. Considering the history of domestic violence, multiple violations of protection orders, respondent's admitted cocaine possession, arrests, and incarceration, alongside the children's successful placement in foster homes with potential for adoption, the court concluded that terminating respondent's parental rights was in the children's best interests. The order was affirmed.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectDomestic ViolenceDrug AbuseOrders of ProtectionChild WelfareFamily Reunification EffortsBest Interests of the ChildAppellate ReviewSocial Services Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Krouner

The respondent, admitted to practice in 1973, pleaded guilty on February 20, 2003, in Supreme Court, Albany County, to three felonies: insurance fraud in the third degree, grand larceny in the fourth degree, and workers’ compensation fraudulent practices. The respondent was sentenced on May 12, 2003. Due to these felony convictions, the respondent was automatically disbarred. The court granted the petitioner’s motion to formally strike the respondent’s name from the roll of attorneys, which is a formality confirming the disbarred status. The disbarment is effective immediately, and the respondent is commanded to cease and refrain from the practice of law.

DisbarmentProfessional MisconductFelony ConvictionInsurance FraudGrand LarcenyWorkers' Compensation Fraudulent PracticesAutomatic DisbarmentAttorney DisciplineStriking from Roll of AttorneysAppellate Division Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Heidi CC.

A proceeding was initiated against a respondent and her fiance under Family Court Act article 10, seeking to adjudicate the respondent's daughter as abused and neglected after the daughter reported sexual abuse by the fiance in Canada. The Family Court initially found both abuse, based on respondent's knowledge and allowance of the abuse, and neglect, due to her failure in parental obligations after placing the child in petitioner's custody. On appeal, the abuse finding was reversed because the daughter's out-of-court statement was insufficiently corroborated regarding the respondent's knowledge of the sexual conduct. However, the neglect finding was affirmed, as the record substantially supported the respondent's pattern of inadequate care, non-cooperation with foster care plans, and expressed intent to avoid her parental responsibilities.

AbuseNeglectChild CustodySexual AbuseParental ObligationsFamily CourtClinton CountyCorroborationSufficiency of EvidenceFoster Care
References
6
Case No. CA 14-02232
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 20, 2015

SVENSON, ERIC, MTR. OF

This case concerns an appeal from an order and judgment that partially vacated an arbitration award. Petitioners, Eric and Marcelle L. Svenson, and respondents, Richard B. Swegan and Debra A. Dinnocenzo, were involved in a property dispute over the removal of maple trees. An arbitrator awarded respondents treble and punitive damages for trespass. The Supreme Court, Chautauqua County, vacated the punitive damages but confirmed the rest of the award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, rejecting petitioners' arguments that they were estopped from appealing, that the arbitrator misapplied RPAPL 861, and that treble damages were punitive. The court held that an arbitrator's factual and substantive law resolutions are generally not reviewable and that RPAPL 861 treble damages are not inherently punitive.

Arbitration AwardVacating ArbitrationPunitive DamagesTreble DamagesTrespass LawProperty Boundary DisputeAppellate Court DecisionCivil ProcedureReal Property LawJudicial Review of Arbitration
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kristopher I.

This case concerns an appeal from an Ulster County Family Court order adjudicating a respondent, born in 1987, a person in need of supervision (PINS) due to chronic school absenteeism. The respondent argued that emotional disability caused the absences and that the Family Court applied an incorrect evidentiary standard, using "preponderance of the evidence" instead of "proof beyond a reasonable doubt" as required by Family Court Act § 744 (b). The appellate court agreed with the respondent regarding the evidentiary standard error. However, after independently reviewing the record, the appellate court determined that even with the correct standard, the evidence established, beyond a reasonable doubt, the unlawfulness of the respondent's persistent absences despite documented mental health issues. Consequently, the order adjudicating the respondent a PINS was affirmed.

PINS ProceedingTruancySchool AbsenteeismEvidentiary StandardBeyond a Reasonable DoubtPreponderance of EvidenceFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewMental HealthChild Welfare
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Robert OO.

This case involves an appeal by the petitioner against a County Court decision dismissing an application for the continued involuntary retention of a respondent. The respondent, diagnosed with pedophilia and mild mental retardation, was civilly committed after being convicted of sexual abuse. Petitioner sought an additional two-year retention at Broome Developmental Center, citing the respondent's ongoing risk of harm to himself or others and his impaired judgment. The appellate court found that the petitioner had met the burden of proof, concluding that the respondent still required constant supervision, and therefore, the petition was improperly dismissed. The order of the County Court was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Mental Hygiene LawCivil CommitmentInvoluntary RetentionPedophiliaSexual AbuseDevelopmental DisabilitiesRisk AssessmentInpatient CareSupervisionAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between New Hampshire Insurance & Utilities Mutual Insurance

Carl Cunniff was injured at work and received workers' compensation benefits from his employer's carrier, referred to as Respondent. Cunniff later settled a personal injury lawsuit against a third party. Erroneously believing Respondent had a lien on this settlement, Cunniff paid a portion of his settlement to Respondent. Respondent then initiated compulsory arbitration against Petitioner, the lessee's insurer, seeking to recover the benefits it had paid and to reimburse Cunniff for the mistaken payment. The arbitration panel ruled in favor of Respondent, awarding it $11,924.51 from Petitioner. Petitioner sought to vacate this arbitration award, but Special Term dismissed the petition and confirmed the award. On appeal, the court affirmed the order and judgment, finding that Respondent had standing to compel arbitration as it was subrogated to Cunniff's right to recover first-party benefits and that the arbitrators' decision was rational, noting that Respondent was obligated to repay Cunniff for the mistaken payment.

Arbitration AwardVacate ArbitrationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsNo-Fault BenefitsInsurance LienSubrogationLoss Transfer ArbitrationPersonal Injury SettlementMistaken PaymentStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 4,606 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