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 29, 2004

Velella v. New York Local Condotional Release Commission

The petitioners, including Gonzalez, Caba, Stephens, Velella, and DelToro, challenged determinations by the Conditional Release Commission and the Department of Correction. These determinations advised petitioners that their conditional releases were invalid and directed them to surrender. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied their five CPLR article 78 petitions. This appellate court unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding the petitioners' conditional releases illegal due to non-compliance with Correction Law § 273 (1) and (6). The court also ruled that the agencies had the power to set aside determinations based on significant irregularities and that the petitioners had no substantive due process right to illegal orders, having been afforded adequate procedural due process through the CPLR article 78 proceedings.

Conditional ReleaseCorrection Law ViolationsDue ProcessArticle 78 PetitionAgency AuthorityIllegal ReleaseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewGovernment EstoppelNew York Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 1984

Polito v. Polito

The plaintiff appealed a judgment dismissing her complaint seeking rescission of a release and reformation of a deed, alleging duress. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the complaint. The appellate court found ample evidence of the defendant's physical and emotional abuse, which compelled the plaintiff to sign the release, thus depriving her of free will. The court reversed the lower court's judgment, reinstated the complaint, and remitted the matter for entry of a judgment rescinding the release and reforming the deed to establish joint tenancy of the property.

DuressRescissionDeed ReformationDomestic ViolenceSpousal AbuseJoint TenancyEquitable ReliefAppellate ReviewFree WillRatification of Agreement
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Evans

The case involves a petitioner, previously convicted of murder and paroled, who was later found mentally incompetent to stand trial for misdemeanor assault charges incurred while residing in an OMH psychiatric facility. Following the dismissal of criminal charges due to incompetency, the Division of Parole initiated revocation proceedings based on the same conduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) sustained the parole violation and recommended re-incarceration. The Supreme Court denied the petitioner's subsequent CPLR Article 78 petition, affirming the revocation. This higher court, in a concurring opinion, reverses the Supreme Court's order, grants the petition, annuls the respondent's determination, and reinstates the petitioner to parole. The core holding is that a prior finding of mental incompetency to stand trial for misdemeanor charges precludes a parole revocation hearing based on the same conduct, emphasizing due process rights and the inability of an incompetent parolee to assist in their own defense. The opinion also highlights legislative deficiencies regarding the Parole Board's authority to determine mental competency.

Competency to stand trialParole revocationDue processMental incompetencyCPLR Article 78 proceedingOffice of Mental Health (OMH)Criminal charges dismissalAdministrative appealStatutory interpretationJudicial remedies
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lugo v. Gaines

This dissenting opinion concerns a petitioner's request for review of a determination terminating his participation in a temporary release program and for monetary damages. The petitioner, an inmate, was removed from the program after a urine sample tested positive for cocaine. The dissent argues that the procedures followed, despite a lack of formal chain of custody documentation, did not violate the petitioner's due process rights, as strict rules of evidence are not required in such disciplinary proceedings. Citing judicial precedent, the dissenting judges emphasize that an inmate's constitutional protections are diminished by institutional needs. Therefore, they would affirm the termination of the petitioner's work release program.

temporary release programdrug testingdue processinmate rightscorrectional facilitiesadministrative hearingchain of custodyurine analysisArticle 78State liability
References
8
Case No. ADJ2244538 (LAO 0883304)
Regular
Jul 29, 2011

MELVIN ISAAC vs. PARAMOUNT PICTURES

This case involves the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removing a matter on its own motion to review a Compromise and Release (C&R) order. The WCAB issued a Notice of Intention to approve the C&R with addenda, allowing parties 20 days to object. As no objections were received, the WCAB rescinded the WCJ's prior approval and entered a new order approving the C&R with the addenda. The cases are now returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalCompromise and ReleaseAddendaWCJ OrderRescindedApprovedTrial LevelParamount PicturesMelvin Isaac
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. WCK0071378
Regular
Aug 07, 2008

KEN RYERSON vs. NESTLE COMPANY, Permissibly Self-Insured, adjusted by SEDGWICK

This case involves a worker's compensation appeal concerning temporary disability and vocational rehabilitation rates. However, the parties submitted a compromise and release agreement for $140,000.00 to settle all claims, including potential death benefits for dependents. The Board granted reconsideration, rescinded its prior decision, and approved the settlement as fair, reasonable, and in the applicant's best interest, considering the release of death benefits and the absence of specific vocational rehabilitation protections.

Compromise and ReleaseVocational Rehabilitation Delay RateThomas FindingRogers ReleaseDeath BenefitsCumulative Industrial InjuryBilateral Upper ExtremitiesNeckSpineBack
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Herrera

This case addresses whether a pretrial services officer can initiate proceedings to revoke pretrial release conditions. Defendant Kiamesha Herrera was indicted for wire fraud and released on bond, subject to conditions including refraining from controlled substance use. After Herrera tested positive for marihuana, a pretrial services officer filed a petition for revocation, which the magistrate judge dismissed, ruling that only the attorney for the government has the authority to initiate such proceedings under 18 U.S.C. § 3148(b). The government appealed, but the district court affirmed the magistrate judge's decision, emphasizing that the statute unambiguously designates the government attorney as the sole initiator and that the Pretrial Services Agency's role is limited to informing and recommending. The court rejected arguments based on common practice or administrative efficiency as reasons to contravene clear statutory language.

Pretrial ReleaseRevocation of ReleaseStatutory InterpretationGovernment AuthorityPretrial Services AgencyJurisdictionProcedural DefectControlled Substances ViolationWire FraudMagistrate Judge Ruling
References
28
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 07198 [144 AD3d 691]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2016

Matter of Sellers v. Stanford

Khaliyq Sellers, convicted of first-degree assault, had his parole revoked by the New York State Board of Parole after violating release conditions at a drug treatment center and during detention at Rikers Island. The violations included making verbal threats to "blow up the place" and threatening to kill everyone at Rikers Island, among other non-compliant behaviors. Sellers initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the revocation on grounds of untimeliness and due process violations, which was transferred to the Appellate Division. The Appellate Division, Second Department, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding on the merits, concluding that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence. The court specifically found that verbal threats constituted prohibited behavior under parole rule 8, without requiring physical conduct, and that the final parole revocation hearing was timely held.

Parole RevocationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingSubstantial Evidence ReviewDue Process RightsParole ViolationsVerbal ThreatsTimeliness of HearingAppellate DivisionAssault ConvictionCorrectional Facility Incident
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Revette

This case involves a petitioner seeking the return of her child, Robert Revette, whose care and custody were voluntarily transferred to the Commissioner of Social Services of Onondaga County. After several informal requests for the child's return were denied, the petitioner formally executed a document permanently surrendering the child for adoption. She subsequently filed a motion to show cause, contending that the surrender was signed under duress and coercion. The court found no evidence of duress or coercion, ruling that the surrender was voluntary and duly executed. Additionally, the petitioner failed to provide proper, formal notice of her intent to revoke the surrender within the allowed 30-day period. Consequently, the court dismissed her petition for the revocation of the surrender and the return of the child.

Child CustodyVoluntary SurrenderRevocation of SurrenderDuress and CoercionFoster CareAdoptionParental RightsSocial Services LawNotice RequirementMental Health History
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,310 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