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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Vlack v. Ternullo

The petitioners, maintenance workers and teachers at Fishkill Correctional Facility, were accused of violating Civil Service Law § 210 for refusing out-of-title emergency assignments during a correction officers' strike. A hearing officer sustained this determination, finding they condoned the job action and failed to prove a bona fide fear of personal injury or reprisals. However, the court annulled this determination, concluding it was not supported by substantial evidence. Testimony revealed picketing correction officers prevented petitioners from reporting to assignments through verbal harassment, abuse, and threats. This, coupled with inmates' support for strikers, created a genuine fear of physical violence, future reprisals, and lack of inmate protection. The court held that refusing assignments due to such a bona fide fear does not constitute a Taylor Law violation.

CPLR Article 78Civil Service LawTaylor LawPublic EmployeesStrikeOut-of-Title AssignmentsFear of InjuryReprisalsSubstantial EvidenceAnnulled Determination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connor v. Pier Sixty, LLC

Plaintiffs, servers assigned by a temporary service agency, initiated a putative class action against defendants Pier Sixty, LLC, AK Pier Sixty, LLC, and Abigail Kirsch, alleging violations of Labor Law § 196-d. The plaintiffs claim they never received a share of the mandatory gratuity charges imposed by the defendants on customers. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, contending that the plaintiffs were independent contractors, not employees, and thus not protected by the statute, citing Bynog v Cipriani Group. The court denied the motion, ruling that the determination of an employment relationship is a factual assessment not suitable for a pre-answer motion to dismiss. The court noted that evidence suggested defendants exercised significant control over the temporary workers, a key factor in establishing an employment relationship.

Class ActionLabor Law § 196-dGratuity DisputeEmployee ClassificationIndependent Contractor StatusMotion to DismissFactual InquiryEmployer ControlTemporary WorkersWage Theft
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cedar Brook Service Station, Inc. v. Chevron U.S.A., Inc.

Plaintiffs, eleven New York service station dealers, brought an action against Chevron U.S.A. Inc. and Cumberland Farms Inc., challenging Chevron's sale of motor fuel properties to Cumberland. Plaintiffs argued the sale violated the Petroleum Marketing Practices Act (PMPA) by terminating or not renewing their franchises. Defendants moved for reconsideration of a prior decision that denied them summary judgment, citing recent federal court rulings. The court, upon reconsideration, found that an assignment valid under state law does not constitute a termination or failure to renew a franchise relationship under the PMPA, provided the franchisee's core rights are maintained. Plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence that the assignment harmed their franchises or violated New York law. Consequently, the court vacated its previous order and granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Petroleum Marketing Practices ActFranchise LawSummary JudgmentContract AssignmentMarket WithdrawalFederal LawNew York LawStatutory InterpretationDealer RightsReconsideration
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 1997

Guri v. Atlanta International Insurance

This motion addresses the enforceability of a post-judgment agreement assigning a defendant’s right to reimbursement from a third-party defendant, particularly when the original plaintiff and third-party defendant are employee and employer. Plaintiff Zorina Guri sought to enforce this assignment agreement against the State Insurance Fund (SIF) and Atlanta International Insurance Company (AIIC), who were the insurers of B.C. Enterprises, Inc., the third-party defendant in an earlier action. The assignment arose from a 1992 judgment where employee Theodore Crawford secured a verdict against Jimmie L. Williams and Geneval K. Williams, who subsequently obtained a contribution judgment against B.C. Enterprises. Guri loaned the Williamses funds to partially satisfy Crawford's judgment, receiving an assignment of their rights, including the contribution judgment against B.C. Enterprises. The court denied SIF's summary judgment motion, ruling the assignment did not violate Workers' Compensation Law public policy, distinguishing it from invalid pretrial agreements, and granted Guri's cross-motion for summary judgment against both defendants, also deeming AIIC's late notice disclaimer ineffective.

Assignment AgreementPost-Judgment EnforcementThird-Party ActionsContributionDole v. Dow exceptionInsurance Coverage DisclaimerLate Notice DefensePublic PolicySummary JudgmentLoan Arrangement
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 5,838 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