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. 2023 NY Slip Op 03030
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 07, 2023

Shapiro v. State of New York

Leonard R. Shapiro, an Administrative Law Judge, appealed an order granting summary judgment to the State of New York and individual defendants in an action alleging age discrimination and retaliation under the New York State Human Rights Law and 42 USC § 1983. Shapiro claimed he faced adverse employment actions, including excessive workload, temporary removal of supervisory duties, and not being considered for a senior position. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed, finding that the defendants established, prima facie, that Shapiro did not suffer a materially adverse employment action for his discrimination claims, and for his retaliation claims, there was no causal connection between any protected activity and the alleged adverse actions. Consequently, the claims for aiding and abetting discrimination also failed.

Age DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationNew York State Human Rights LawRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionPrima Facie CaseEqual ProtectionUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardConstitutional Rights
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2005

Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP v. Friedman, Khafif & Associates

This case involves a fee dispute between successor law firm Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP, and predecessor firm Friedman, Khafif & Associates, regarding a personal injury action for Pedro Colon. The trial court (IAS court) initially ruled that Friedman, Khafif & Associates forfeited its right to a fee due to alleged misconduct, including failure to file a derivative claim for Mrs. Colon, settling without client consent, and delayed retainer statement filing. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding no evidence of misconduct. It determined that the Friedman Firm's actions were proper, the settlement was conditional, and the retainer statement delay was ministerial. Consequently, the Friedman Firm was awarded a percentage of the initial settlement offer it secured, and Wingate, Russotti & Shapiro, LLP was awarded its negotiated share of the enhanced settlement amount.

Fee DisputeAttorney MisconductDischarge for CauseQuantum MeruitContingency FeeLegal EthicsAttorney LienPersonal InjurySettlement AgreementAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 09029
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Shapiro v. Tardalo

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which denied the plaintiff's (Mark Shapiro) motion to file a second amended complaint. The court's decision was based on the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, which grants immunity to defendants for cooperating with government investigations, even if allegations of false evidence are made and the plaintiff is ultimately acquitted. The plaintiff's claim did not fall under the 'sham' exception to the doctrine, as the defendants demonstrated a genuine pecuniary interest in assisting the governmental investigation into insurance fraud. The court found no abuse of discretion in denying the plaintiff's motion.

Noerr-Pennington doctrineImmunitySecond Amended ComplaintInsurance FraudSham ExceptionAppellate ReviewMotion DenialCivil ProcedureFreedom of SpeechAntitrust Law
References
3
Case No. ADJ7624426; ADJ8657421
Regular
Jun 18, 2013

NATHALIE AMEZQUITA vs. SCOTT ZIEHL an Individual, Co-Partner dba JEWELRY, Liquidation USA

The applicant petitioned for disqualification of WCJ Richard Shapiro, alleging enmity and prejudgment. The applicant's counsel stated the WCJ declared the applicant would "take nothing" and was "a liar" before trial. The WCJ did not deny these statements, suggesting they were to facilitate settlement and noting concerns about applicant's attorney's tactics. The Appeals Board granted the disqualification petition, finding the WCJ's statements demonstrated bias or the appearance of bias, and returned the case for reassignment to a new WCJ.

Petition for DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law Judgeenmityformed opinionprejudicedtake nothingliarinformal resolutionappearance of biasreassignment
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaplan v. Shapiro

Plaintiffs Neville and Ann Kaplan sued Hyman Shapiro, Ruth Shapiro, Norman Karp, and the Ruth Shapiro Trust, alleging fraudulent inducement to invest $150,000 in real estate projects. The complaint cited violations of federal securities laws, Rule 10b-5, New York General Business Law, and common law fraud. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the investment was not a 'security' under the Howey test. The court found no 'common enterprise' under either horizontal or restrictive vertical commonality, thus failing the Howey test. Consequently, federal claims were dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, and state law claims were dismissed without prejudice due to the absence of pendent jurisdiction.

Securities FraudInvestment ContractHowey TestCommon EnterpriseSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentFederal Securities LawNew York Statutory LawPendent JurisdictionReal Estate Investment
References
19
Case No. VNO 0450531
Regular
Jun 12, 2008

NELSON PIMENTEL (Deceased) CLAUDIA CISNEROS, Guardian Ad Litem for SUMMER PIMENTEL vs. DAYNITE FACILITIES; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to address an attorney's fee dispute and a request for disqualification of the Workers' Compensation Judge (WCJ). The WCAB increased the attorney's fee awarded to Ronald Ehrman to $4,800.00, finding that he had cured prior notification defects regarding his adverse interest in seeking additional fees. Additionally, the WCAB disqualified the original WCJ, finding that his criticisms of Ehrman's conduct created an appearance of bias, and reassigned the case to a new WCJ.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsAttorney's FeesGuardian Ad LitemReconsiderationDisqualificationWCJAdverse InterestEthics ViolationsPenalties
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Touche Ross & Co.

In this consolidated class action, Touche Ross & Co., as assignee of claims from the Goldberg action, moved for summary judgment against Theodor H. Kaufman, Benjamin Lieberman, and Jack Shapiro. The litigation originated from allegedly fraudulent financial statements issued by Giant Stores Corp. for fiscal years 1971 and 1972, which Touche Ross had certified as Giant's auditor. Shapiro, an officer and director of Giant, was previously convicted of fraud related to these statements. The court addressed Shapiro's arguments against Touche Ross's motion, including claims of impermissible indemnity and factual disputes regarding causation and damages. The court emphasized a strong public policy against indemnity in securities fraud cases and denied Touche Ross's motion, suggesting that contribution from nonsettling defendants might be an alternative remedy.

Securities FraudClass ActionSummary Judgment MotionIndemnityContributionCorporate OfficersFinancial Statements FraudAuditor LiabilityBankruptcy ActSEC Investigation
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shapiro v. New York University

Loretta Shapiro filed a lawsuit against New York University and related entities seeking pension benefits under ERISA, contesting the exclusion of her "ADD COMP" payments from her pensionable income. Previously, these payments, considered bonuses by the defendants, were included in her pension estimates. Upon application for retirement benefits, the Plan Administrator re-evaluated and denied the inclusion of "ADD COMP" in her pensionable earnings, asserting discretion to interpret plan terms. The court applied an "arbitrary and capricious" standard of review to the Administrator's decision, given the plan's broad grant of interpretive authority. Finding the term "bonus" ambiguous and the Administrator's interpretation reasonable, even with a potential conflict of interest, the court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and denied Shapiro's cross-motion.

ERISAPension BenefitsSummary JudgmentPlan Administrator DiscretionBonus PaymentsCompensation DefinitionArbitrary and Capricious StandardConflict of InterestRetirement PlanEmployee Benefits
References
24
Case No. ADJ3107843 (MON 0208626)
Regular
Oct 05, 2009

CHRIS DERBOGHOSSIAN vs. ALL TUNE & LUBE, ERIE INSURANCE COMPANY, CRAWFORD & COMPANY

The Board affirmed the WCJ's decision except for the attorney's fees award for the applicant's wife deposition; the contempt order was rescinded as the WCJ lacked authority to address indirect contempt.

WCABremovalreconsiderationdisqualificationcontemptindirect contemptLabor Code section 5814transportation expenseattorney feesmedical treatment
References
11
Case No. ADJ7184070
Regular
Aug 17, 2016

ARMANDO RODRIGUEZ vs. PACIFIC EXTERIORS, SEABRIGHT INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied a lien claimant's Petition for Removal and Disqualification of the WCJ. The lien claimant sought to challenge an order rescinding an earlier lien allowance and a notice of intent to sanction them for allegedly obtaining a settlement without proper authority. The Board found that the lien claimant had adequate recourse through a petition for reconsideration regarding sanctions and that the disqualification allegations were not supported by the record. The WCJ acted appropriately by rescinding the order when concerns were raised, and no bias was demonstrated.

Petition for RemovalWCJLien ClaimantSanctionsDisqualificationCompromise and ReleaseLabor CodeAdministrative Law JudgeOrder Re: LienPetition for Reconsideration
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 6,029 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