Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06024 [153 AD3d 998]

Regular Panel Decision

Aug 03, 2017

In Re Dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc.

The case involves the judicial dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc., a closely-held corporation. Petitioners, Vladimir Chomiak, Leon Chomiak, and Leonora Chomiak, sought dissolution alleging oppressive conduct and looting of corporate assets by respondents, Tatiana Chomiak Kasian, Tamara L. Chomiak, and the estate of Leo Chomiak. Supreme Court granted the dissolution, finding that respondents engaged in actions such as awarding themselves unjustified bonuses, issuing undervalued stock to dilute petitioners' ownership, and attempting to force petitioners to sell their shares. The court also found that respondents looted corporate assets through unsubstantiated loans. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that Vladimir Chomiak had standing, the proceeding was not time-barred by the six-year statute of limitations for equitable breach of fiduciary duty claims, and there was ample evidence to support findings of oppressive actions and looting of corporate assets.

corporate dissolutionminority shareholder oppressionbreach of fiduciary dutycorporate lootingdilution of sharesstatute of limitationsstandingclosely-held corporationappellate reviewfiduciary relationship

References

Case No. ADJ1745994 (LAO 0863856)

Regular

Jul 29, 2015

VLADIMIR KIRAKOSYAN vs. QUALITY SECURITY SERVICE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The defendant sought reconsideration of a procedural order memorializing stipulations that took an expedited hearing off calendar. The stipulations involved authorizing medical consultations, with the defendant claiming the applicant's counsel omitted a material fact. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition for reconsideration as it was not filed from a final order. Furthermore, the petition for removal was denied, as the defendant failed to demonstrate significant prejudice or irreparable harm, and a unilateral mistake is not sufficient grounds to set aside stipulations.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinutes of HearingStipulationsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightsLiabilitiesThreshold issue

References

Case No. ADJ7775007

Regular

Nov 10, 2014

VLADIMIR CARMONA CALDERON vs. AMERICAN GOLF, ARCH INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed the petition for reconsideration because it was not filed from a final order, but rather an interlocutory procedural ruling. The WCAB also denied the petition for removal, finding no substantial prejudice or irreparable harm if removal was not granted. The Board confirmed its continuing jurisdiction, which allows it to address issues like venue even after an order of dismissal. Therefore, the petition was dismissed and removal denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsContinuing JurisdictionOrder of Dismissal

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Mar 01, 1993

Konstantinovsky v. Golden Chocolate, Inc.

Vladimir Konstantinovsky, the injured plaintiff, sought damages for injuries sustained when he was struck by a forklift operated by Nemirovsky, an employee of Golden Chocolate, Inc. Golden Chocolate moved for summary judgment, arguing Nemirovsky was a special employee of Konstantinovsky's employer, Gold Star Trading Company, which would bar the suit under Workers' Compensation Law, or that Nemirovsky acted outside the scope of his employment. The Supreme Court denied this motion. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment, finding that there were issues of fact regarding whether Nemirovsky was acting within the scope of his employment or if he was a special employee of Gold Star Trading Company.

Personal InjuryForklift AccidentScope of EmploymentSpecial EmployeeSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionNegligenceIssues of FactEmployer LiabilityKings County

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Weinfeld v. HR Photography, Inc.

The plaintiff, injured at a wedding by a videographer (Vladimir Kataiev) hired by HR Photography, Inc. (HR), sued HR for vicarious liability and negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. HR moved for summary judgment, arguing Kataiev was an independent contractor. The Supreme Court granted HR's motion, finding Kataiev an independent contractor and no evidence of HR's negligence. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that HR successfully demonstrated Kataiev's independent contractor status based on factors like using his own equipment, receiving cash payments without benefits, and HR exercising only minimal control. The court also found no evidence that HR knew of Kataiev's propensity for the conduct that caused the injury.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipControl TestTort Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Batista v. City of New York

This multi-party litigation stems from a fatal rear-end collision on the Jackie Robinson Parkway. Welsbach Electric Corp. employees were setting up a lane closure when Vladimir Magliore stopped his van behind their truck and was struck by a motorcycle operated by Luis Torres, who died, and his passenger, Arelis Batista, was injured. Batista and Casilda Torres, as the decedent's administratrix, initiated separate actions against the City of New York, various Welsbach entities (Welsbach defendants), and Magliore. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to Magliore, finding the decedent solely negligent, and subsequently granted summary judgment to the Welsbach defendants and the City, concluding their alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of the accident. On appeal, the court found the Supreme Court erred on the application of collateral estoppel regarding the Welsbach defendants and the City's negligence but ultimately affirmed the summary judgment grants, agreeing that any alleged negligence by the Welsbach defendants and the City merely furnished the condition for the accident and was not its proximate cause, which was solely attributed to the decedent's negligence.

Rear-end collisionSummary judgmentProximate causeNegligenceCollateral estoppelConsolidated actionsAppellate reviewTraffic accidentConstruction zoneMotorcycle accident

References

Showing 1-6 of 6 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

In Re Dissolution of Twin Bay Village, Inc.

VLADIMIR KIRAKOSYAN vs. QUALITY SECURITY SERVICE, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalMinutes of HearingStipulationsDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedNon-final orderFinal orderSubstantive rightsLiabilitiesThreshold issue

VLADIMIR CARMONA CALDERON vs. AMERICAN GOLF, ARCH INSURANCE, GALLAGHER BASSETT SERVICES

Petition for ReconsiderationDenial of RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightLiabilityInterlocutoryProcedural DecisionsEvidentiary DecisionsContinuing JurisdictionOrder of Dismissal

Konstantinovsky v. Golden Chocolate, Inc.

Personal InjuryForklift AccidentScope of EmploymentSpecial EmployeeSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionNegligenceIssues of FactEmployer LiabilityKings County

Weinfeld v. HR Photography, Inc.

Vicarious LiabilityIndependent ContractorNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipControl TestTort Law

Batista v. City of New York

Rear-end collisionSummary judgmentProximate causeNegligenceCollateral estoppelConsolidated actionsAppellate reviewTraffic accidentConstruction zoneMotorcycle accident