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. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1968

In re Male Child Wilkov

In a contested adoption proceeding, the natural mother appealed an order from the Family Court, Suffolk County, dated December 17, 1968. The order had concluded that she abandoned her infant child, dismissed her application for the child's return, rejected her objection to the proposed adoption, and directed the court clerk to proceed with the adoption application. The appellate court affirmed the order, despite noting an error by the trial court regarding a social worker's communication. The trial court mistakenly believed the natural mother spoke with a hospital social worker, when in fact, the social worker had only conversed with the child's grandmother. However, the appellate court found that there was ample independent evidence to support the abandonment finding, irrespective of this factual dispute.

Adoption LawChild AbandonmentFamily Court AppealParental RightsSuffolk County Family CourtAppellate AffirmationSocial Worker TestimonyFactual ErrorEvidentiary SupportChild Custody
References
1
Case No. ADJ3502038 (VNO 0531200) ADJ3850322 (VNO 0531201)
Regular
Oct 21, 2010

MARIA DE LA LUZ PADILLA vs. SUNRISE SENIOR LIVING, INC., HOME ASSURANCE COMPANY, SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied the defendant's petition for reconsideration of a Stipulations and Award (S&A) regarding applicant's neck, shoulder, and chest injuries. The defendant claimed mutual mistake and delays by applicant's attorney as grounds to set aside the S&A. However, the WCAB found these allegations insufficient to overturn the executed contract. The matter is returned to the trial level for further proceedings on the defendant's separate petition to set aside the S&A, due to apparent procedural irregularities.

Stipulations and AwardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition to Set AsideMutual Mistake of FactGood CauseDelay in ApprovalService of DocumentEthical BreachesTrial Level ProceedingsWorkers' Compensation Judge
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Roland (In Re Roland)

This post-trial decision concerns an adversary proceeding initiated by the plaintiff, Marjorie Thompson, Esq., against her former husband, the debtor, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The plaintiff sought to declare the debtor's obligation to pay her attorney's fees non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) or (a)(15). These fees stemmed from state court litigation where the plaintiff compelled the debtor to cooperate in the sale of a jointly owned property, and from the current bankruptcy proceedings. The court analyzed whether an enforceable right to attorney's fees existed under the parties' separation agreement's indemnification clause. It concluded that the indemnification provisions did not cover the specific breach committed by the debtor, thus failing to establish a contractual right to attorney's fees. As a result, the court ruled there was no "debt" to be deemed non-dischargeable and dismissed the adversary proceeding on its merits.

Bankruptcy LawNon-Dischargeability of DebtAttorney's FeesSeparation AgreementIndemnification ClauseContract InterpretationRooker-Feldman DoctrineStipulation of LawChapter 7Adversary Proceeding
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 1982

Cerrato v. Thurcon Construction Corp.

This case concerns a construction worker (plaintiff) who sustained serious injuries and sued 211 Thompson Corp. (owner) and Thurcon Construction Corp. (general contractor). Defendant 211 Thompson Corp. raised an affirmative defense of lack of personal jurisdiction due to improper service of process. After the Statute of Limitations had expired, plaintiff moved to strike this defense, while 211 cross-moved to dismiss the action as time-barred. Special Term referred the issue of service validity to a referee, but the plaintiff argued for a jury trial on this factual issue. The Appellate Division, Supreme Court, New York County, modified Special Term's order, directing a jury trial on the validity of the service, while otherwise affirming the original determination. The dissenting opinion argued that the right to a jury trial should not be conditioned on the stage of proceedings or the impact of dismissal on the Statute of Limitations, and furthermore, considered the question of authority to accept service as one of law, not fact.

Jury TrialService of ProcessPersonal JurisdictionStatute of LimitationsAffirmative DefenseAppellate ReviewCPLRProcedural LawConstruction AccidentsNew York Courts
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Sandnes v. Sheriff of Kings County

The relator was found guilty of contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment for violating a temporary injunction. A writ of habeas corpus was obtained, challenging the legality of the commitment. The court, presided over by Pecora, J. in Engs county, sustained the writ. It found that the original injunction was void because it was issued without the requisite notice under Civil Practice Act § 882, and failed to comply with Civil Practice Act § 876-a, which governs injunctions in labor disputes. The court had exceeded its jurisdiction by proceeding without proper findings, notice, and proof of efforts to settle the dispute. Additionally, the relator was unlawfully denied a jury trial in the contempt proceeding as mandated by Judiciary Law § 753-a, and the commitment order itself was defective for not detailing the circumstances of the contempt. Therefore, the relator was discharged.

Habeas CorpusContempt of CourtTemporary InjunctionLabor DisputeJudicial JurisdictionCivil Practice Act ViolationsJudiciary Law ApplicationLack of NoticeDenial of Jury TrialVoid Orders
References
32
Case No. LAO 0824629
Regular
Aug 16, 2007

R. MARTINEZ vs. HILTON HOTEL, SPECIALTY RISK SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's petition for removal, rescinding an earlier order that had taken the case off calendar over the applicant's objection. The Board agreed that the case should have proceeded to trial, as the defendant improperly filed a Declaration of Readiness to Proceed while proceedings were suspended. The matters are now returned to the trial level for rescheduling, with the issue of defense witnesses deferred to the trial judge.

RemovalPetition for RemovalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedDiscoveryWitnessesOrder Suspending ProceedingsRescindedTrial LevelWCJWorkers' Compensation Appeals Board
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 19, 2010

In re Allen Children

The Department of Social Services (DSS) moved to reopen a trial to admit a certificate of conviction from Town of Sandy Creek Justice Court against the respondent father, Mr. Allen, for endangering the welfare of a child. The original neglect petition against Mr. Allen had been dismissed. The court considered factors for reopening a trial, including the sufficiency of the offer of proof, potential prejudice, and whether the evidence would add to the record. The court denied the motion, finding that while the conduct in both proceedings was similar and Mr. Allen had a full and fair opportunity to litigate in the criminal action, the conviction for endangering the welfare of a child did not, by itself, prove actual or imminent physical, emotional, or mental impairment to the child, which is a required element for a finding of neglect under Family Court Act § 1012(f)(i)(B). Therefore, the certificate of conviction lacked collateral estoppel effect and would not provide new evidence or add anything to the record.

Reopening TrialCollateral EstoppelNeglect PetitionChild EndangermentCertificate of ConvictionSufficiency of EvidenceFamily Court JurisdictionParental Minimum Degree of CarePrejudiceOffer of Proof
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Adoption of Doe

In a proceeding to vacate an adoption, respondent ERJ moved to close the courtroom during a hearing on Cambodian law, arguing that media exposure regarding her adopted four-year-old son, John Doe, could cause emotional harm. Movant LMB opposed the motion. Justice Kristin Booth Glen denied the application for courtroom closure, emphasizing the strong constitutional and statutory presumption of public trials, which ERJ's speculative claims of harm and a hypothetical expert affidavit failed to overcome. The court further noted the significant public interest in the case, particularly concerning Cambodian adoption certificates and US government policy. While upholding the sealing of adoption-related documents, the court denied sealing the trial transcript and its decisions, affirming the principle of open court records.

Adoption disputeCourt transparencyChild protectionInternational lawParental rightsMedia accessJudicial precedentFamily lawNew York courtsExpert testimony
References
25
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
Showing 1-10 of 10,333 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