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
Apr 28, 2004

Maraia v. Valentine

The plaintiffs appealed from an order vacating a prior award of summary judgment in their favor and from a judgment, based on a jury verdict, dismissing their complaint in an action for breach of contract. The defendant, an electrical contractor, was accused by Local 363, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, of operating a nonunion business and failing to comply with union bylaws regarding the timely filing of charges. The Supreme Court properly vacated the summary judgment, finding a triable issue of fact concerning compliance with the union's constitution. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from the intermediate order as direct appeal terminated with the entry of judgment, but affirmed the final judgment, upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

Breach of ContractSummary JudgmentJury VerdictUnion BylawsAppellate ReviewProcedural LawLabor DisputeDismissal of ComplaintTriable Issue of FactInterlocutory Appeal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lim Kwock Soon v. Brownell

This case involves a prior judgment from 1958 which declared Lim Kwock Soon and Lim Kwock Min as U.S. nationals and citizens, following a reversal and remand by the Court of Appeals due to a finding of mistake by the district court. In 1966, a stipulation was filed by the plaintiffs, acknowledging that a fraud was perpetrated upon the court in the original case and agreeing to vacate the 1958 judgment and dismiss their petition with prejudice. Subsequently, the defendant filed a motion to formally vacate the judgment and enter a new judgment in accordance with this stipulation. However, the District Judge denied this motion, expressing serious doubt about the court's authority to alter a Court of Appeals' order without further direction and considering the case closed. The judge also requested clarification on the fact-finding authority of a district judge in non-jury cases.

FraudVacating JudgmentMotion DeniedDistrict Court AuthorityAppellate ReviewStipulationCitizenshipNationalsCredibility of WitnessesFact-Finding
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Ford

The defendant appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Kings County, convicting him of robbery in the first degree, and an order denying his motion to vacate the said judgment. The appeals court affirmed the order and judgment. Justice Suozzi dissented, arguing that the defendant was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney withdrew a crucial alibi defense, despite available witnesses and evidence. The dissent highlighted the trial justice's dissatisfaction with defense counsel's performance and argued that the lower court erred in denying the motion to vacate without a hearing, asserting that the counsel's representation was totally ineffective, rendering the defense meaningless.

Criminal Procedure LawIneffective assistance of counselAlibi defenseRobbery convictionMotion to vacate judgmentAppellate reviewTrial strategyDissenting opinionLegal Aid SocietyCriminal appeal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Braun v. Carey

This case involves an appeal by defendants from an order denying their motion to vacate a summary judgment previously granted to the plaintiff. The plaintiff sued for legal services, and the defendants initially denied retainer and services, though their answer contained an inadvertent admission. After the plaintiff obtained summary judgment, the defendants sought to vacate it, arguing they were denied the opportunity to respond to late-served reply affidavits and that triable issues of fact existed regarding the retainer and the extent of services. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion to vacate, but the appellate court reversed, finding that genuine issues of material fact were indeed present, making summary judgment inappropriate. Consequently, the appellate court granted the defendants' motion to vacate the original order and allowed them leave to serve an amended answer.

AppealSummary JudgmentMotion to VacateAmended AnswerTriable Issues of FactLegal ServicesRetainer AgreementProcedural ErrorAppellate ReviewCivil Practice Rules
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicholas v. Consolidated Edison Co.

In a wrongful death action, plaintiff Eugenie Nicholas and third-party defendant Erie Conduit Corporation appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, dated February 1, 1982, which denied their motion to vacate a prior judgment dated September 16, 1981. The appellate court found that the trial court's original judgment improperly structured the parties' rights and liabilities concerning a $365,000 settlement, diverging from the jury's verdict and the court's indemnification ruling. Specifically, it prejudiced the plaintiff's right to full recovery from main defendants and incorrectly authorized recovery against the decedent's employer. Treating the motion as one to vacate, the appellate court reversed the order, granted the motion, and vacated the final paragraph of the 1981 judgment, substituting provisions that properly reflect the parties' liabilities and indemnification obligations based on the jury verdict and the court's earlier ruling.

Wrongful DeathIndemnificationContributionJudgment VacatedJury VerdictApportionment of LiabilityThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewCivil ProcedureDamages
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kwasnik v. Willo Packing Co.

This case concerns an appeal by a petitioner from an order that vacated a prior judgment which confirmed an arbitrator's award. The petitioner was discharged for alleged theft, but an arbitrator ordered his reinstatement. The respondent sought to overturn this, initially alleging fraud and later presenting 'newly discovered evidence' after the petitioner gave conflicting testimony in a co-worker's trial. Special Term granted the respondent's motion, vacating the prior judgment. The appellate court reversed this decision, holding that newly discovered evidence is not a valid ground for vacating an arbitrator's award under CPLR 7511, and that the evidence presented was either previously available or merely impeaching. The original judgment confirming the arbitrator's award was thus reinstated.

Arbitration AwardVacaturReinstatementCollective BargainingFraud AllegationsNewly Discovered EvidenceCPLR 7511Appellate ReviewWitness CredibilityDischarge for Misconduct
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtis v. Schlegel Manufacturing Corp.

The plaintiff, a former employee, sought $419 in back vacation pay from the defendant, his former employer, under a collective bargaining agreement. The plaintiff initiated a lawsuit in Henrietta Justice Court after being denied recovery through the initial steps of the grievance procedure, but before exhausting the final step of binding arbitration. The Monroe County Court affirmed the lower court's judgment. However, the appellate court determined that the employee failed to exhaust all remedies available under the collective bargaining agreement. Citing legal precedents, the court ruled that an employee must complete the grievance procedure, including arbitration, when the union is willing to pursue the grievance. Consequently, the appellate order unanimously reversed the judgment, vacated the complaint, and dismissed it, without costs.

Vacation Pay DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureExhaustion of RemediesBinding ArbitrationEmployment LawContractual ObligationAppellate ReviewJudgment ReversalComplaint Dismissal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shamshovich v. Shvartsman

The plaintiff initiated an action to recover damages for breach of fiduciary duty and secured a judgment against the defendant, Samuel Racer, in 2000. This judgment, however, was not formally entered until 2010. Subsequently, in 2012, Racer moved to vacate the judgment, contending that the plaintiff had abandoned the action by failing to timely enter the judgment, citing 22 NYCRR 202.48. The Supreme Court initially granted Racer's motion without providing an explanation. Upon appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, denying Racer's motion to vacate and reinstating the original judgment. The appellate court determined that 22 NYCRR 202.48 was inapplicable as no further judicial action was required for the judgment's entry, and Racer failed to present any other valid grounds for vacatur under CPLR 5015 (a).

Fiduciary DutyJudgment VacaturAppellate ReviewProcedural RulesCivil ProcedureDefault JudgmentTimelinessRule 22 NYCRR 202.48CPLR 5015(a)Kings County
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Workers' Compensation Board v. Old Lamson Station, Inc.

The defendant appealed an order denying its motion to vacate a judgment entered by the plaintiff pursuant to Workers' Compensation Law § 26. The record indicated that the plaintiff had unilaterally vacated the challenged judgment prior to the Supreme Court's denial of the defendant's motion. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the appeal was moot, as the defendant was no longer aggrieved by the judgment, and the case did not fall within any exception to the mootness doctrine. The appeal was unanimously dismissed without costs.

Mootness DoctrineAppeal DismissedWorkers' Compensation LawVacate JudgmentAggrieved PartyAppellate CourtOswego County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. New York City Housing Authority

Defendant moved to vacate a judgment entered against it on April 23, 2007, alleging misrepresentation or misconduct by the plaintiff, pursuant to CPLR 5015 (a) (3). The case stemmed from a slip and fall accident where the plaintiff, an employee of United Home Care Services, Inc., received workers' compensation benefits. A settlement of $135,000 was reached, but a dispute arose concerning the satisfaction of a $76,322.78 workers' compensation lien held by the New York State Insurance Fund. Defendant argued that the satisfaction of the lien and direct payment to the lienholder were material conditions of the settlement, which the plaintiff failed to ensure in the tendered release documents. The court found the release defective for not providing for lien satisfaction, lacking the lienholder's agreement to an escrow, and omitting an indemnification clause for the defendant. Consequently, the judgment was vacated, although the defendant's request for attorney's fees was denied.

Vacate JudgmentSettlement DisputeWorkers' Compensation LienCPLR 5015Release ValidityEscrow AgreementSubrogation RightsAttorney's Fees DeniedSlip and Fall AccidentJudgment Enforcement
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 18,260 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