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
May 22, 2006

219 East 7th Street Housing Development Fund Corp. v. 324 East 8th Street Housing Development Fund Corp.

The appellate court reversed a May 22, 2006, order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which had denied the plaintiff's motion to vacate a prior dismissal of the complaint. The appellate court deemed the plaintiff's motion as seeking renewal of the dismissal order under CPLR 2221 (e). Upon review of new evidence, including psychiatric affirmations, it was found that the plaintiff's former attorney failed to comply with a discovery deadline due to a diagnosed mental illness. Given that all required disclosure has since been provided and no prejudice to the defendants was shown, the court concluded that dismissal was an overly harsh penalty for nonvolitional failures related to the attorney's mental health. Consequently, the prior dismissal order was vacated, and the complaint was reinstated.

Attorney misconductDiscovery violationsVacatur of orderMental health defenseAppellate reversalComplaint reinstatementProcedural lawJudicial discretionSanctionsCPLR procedure
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Greater Blouse, Skirt & Neck-Wear Contractors Ass'n

The defendant, Slate Belt, moved to vacate a notice of voluntary dismissal filed by the plaintiff, the Government, under Rule 41(a)(1)(i) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Slate Belt argued the dismissal was not at an 'early stage' and would cause prejudice, despite never having filed an answer. The court found that no joinder of issue occurred, and the merits of the controversy were never presented or passed upon by the court. Extended private negotiations between the parties regarding a proposed decree were not considered the equivalent of an answer or court action on the merits, nor did incurred legal fees constitute sufficient prejudice. Consequently, the court held that the plaintiff was within its rights to file the voluntary dismissal, and the defendant's motion to vacate was denied.

Voluntary dismissalRule 41(a)(1)(i)Federal Rules of Civil ProcedureSherman ActJoinder of issuePrejudiceMeritsNegotiationsDistrict CourtMotion practice
References
2
Case No. ADJ2501619 (OAK 0286955)
Regular
Nov 10, 2008

JAMES BRADFORD vs. MCMILLAN BROS. ELECTRIC, INC., PACIFIC EAGLE INSURANCE CO./tpa SEABRIGHT INSURANCE CO.

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board vacated its prior order granting reconsideration and dismissed the defendant's petitions for reconsideration, removal, and stay of execution. The petition for reconsideration was dismissed as untimely because it was filed with the Appeals Board more than 25 days after the arbitrator's decision. The Board also lacked jurisdiction to grant the petition for removal or stay of execution, as these actions are not permitted for an arbitrator's decision in a Labor Code section 3201.5 carve-out case.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalPetition for Stay of ExecutionUntimely FilingLabor Code Section 3201.5Carve-out CaseArbitrator's DecisionJurisdictionAppeals Board Rule 10865
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 06, 2002

Cosby v. R.G. Delivery Service, Inc.

This case concerns a plaintiff's appeal regarding the denial of their motion to vacate a dismissal order. The original action for personal injuries, sustained in the course of employment when boxes allegedly delivered by the defendant toppled, was dismissed due to the plaintiff's attorney's failure to attend a post-note-of-issue conference. The Supreme Court affirmed the denial, citing the plaintiff's unexplained four-year delay in seeking to vacate the dismissal and the apparent lack of merit of the underlying action due to Workers' Compensation Law implications. Additionally, the court found the plaintiff's evidence regarding the stacking of boxes to lack sufficient probative value.

Personal InjuryDismissalVacate OrderLaw Office FailurePost-Note-of-Issue ConferenceWorkers' Compensation LawProbative ValueMedical ReportsDelay in MotionAppellate Review
References
1
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

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

Orth v. Coffey

Kenneth Orth initiated a negligence action to recover damages for personal injuries. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted Orth’s application to vacate the workers’ compensation lien of Firemen’s Insurance Company and denied Firemen’s cross motion to dismiss. On appeal, the order was reversed. The appellate court denied Orth’s motion to vacate Firemen’s lien and granted Firemen’s cross motion to dismiss, citing Workers’ Compensation Law § 29(1) which provides an absolute lien to a compensation carrier on third-party recoveries despite no-fault provisions in the Insurance Law. The court distinguished the case from Grello v Daszykowski, noting that Firemen and Allstate Insurance Company (the no-fault carrier) were not the same entity. The decision was made without prejudice to plaintiffs pursuing proceedings against Allstate Insurance Company as the no-fault carrier.

NegligencePersonal InjuryWorkers' Compensation LienNo-Fault InsuranceThird-Party ActionInsurance LawMotor Vehicle AccidentLien VacaturAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. ADJ9202952
Regular
Nov 05, 2018

MARIA LOPEZ vs. KELLERMEYER BERGENSON SERVICES, LLC, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE COMPANY, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES, INC.

The WCAB dismissed the defendant's Petition for Reconsideration of an Order Vacating, finding the order was not a final decision. However, it granted the defendant's Petition for Removal of that same Order Vacating, deeming it untimely under WCAB Rule 10859. Consequently, the WCAB vacated the Order Vacating, restoring the original July 5, 2018 Findings of Fact. The WCAB also dismissed the lien claimant's Petition for Removal, affirming the July 5, 2018 Findings of Fact which held the lien claimant bound by prior causation findings.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalOrder VacatingFindings of FactAdministrative Law JudgeLien ClaimantSubstantial PrejudiceIrreparable HarmFinal Order
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Raggie

Severius Raggie, a debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2006, which was subsequently dismissed in February 2006 due to his failure to comply with credit counseling requirements and other obligations. In January 2008, Raggie moved to amend his Schedule B and Statement of Financial Affairs to include a personal injury claim against CVP # 1, LLC et al. This motion was prompted by the defendants' attempt in state court to dismiss the personal injury action because it was not listed in Raggie's bankruptcy petition. The court addressed the core issue of whether a dismissed bankruptcy case, as opposed to a closed one, precludes a debtor's right to amend schedules under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a). The court concluded that 'closed' under § 350 and Rule 1009 does not encompass 'dismissed,' thereby maintaining Raggie's right to amend. Finding no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or prejudice to creditors, the court granted Raggie's motion to amend his schedules, rendering the motion to vacate the dismissal order moot.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Schedule B AmendmentDismissed CaseClosed Case DistinctionPersonal Injury ClaimDebtor's RightsFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureBad FaithCreditor Prejudice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 02, 1990

Kathleen G. v. St. Lawrence County Department of Social Services

The petitioner appealed an order from the Surrogate’s Court of St. Lawrence County which dismissed her application to vacate the surrender of her infant daughter, Elizabeth, for adoption to the respondent. Elizabeth had previously been in foster care and returned to the petitioner. The petitioner subsequently signed a surrender document in December 1988, allegedly after discussions with her caseworker and an adoption worker, and after it was read and explained to her by the adoption worker and acknowledged by the Surrogate. Petitioner later sought to vacate the surrender, alleging she was misled and coerced, particularly concerning visitation rights. The Surrogate's Court dismissed her petition, finding her testimony unbelievable and crediting the respondent's witnesses who testified that the surrender was fully discussed, voluntary, and without conditions on visitation. The appellate court affirmed the decision, deferring to the Surrogate's Court's factual findings regarding witness credibility and the voluntary nature of the surrender. Additionally, the court declined to review the constitutional question raised by the petitioner, as it was not litigated in the Surrogate's Court and the Attorney-General was not provided with notice.

AdoptionChild SurrenderVacate OrderParental RightsCoercionFraudVisitation RightsSurrogate's CourtAppellate ReviewWitness Credibility
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 13,794 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