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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03790
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 2022

Matter of Hamling

Jerry Ray Hamling, an attorney admitted in New York in 2015, pleaded guilty in June 2020 to falsifying business records in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor. This conviction stemmed from his actions directing his payroll processing company, Affinity Human Resources, LLC, to treat one of a construction client's companies as separate, leading to knowing omissions in payroll records. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the Third Judicial Department moved to impose discipline, citing the conviction as a "serious crime." The Court concurred, finding the conviction, which included intent to defraud, qualified as a serious crime under Judiciary Law § 90 (4) (d). Weighing mitigating factors like a clean disciplinary record against aggravating factors such as illegal conduct despite substantial legal experience, the Court ordered a one-year suspension from the practice of law to safeguard the public and uphold professional integrity.

Attorney MisconductFalsifying Business RecordsSerious CrimeProfessional DisciplineSuspension of AttorneyPayroll FraudIntent to DefraudAppellate DivisionJudiciary Law 90Disciplinary Proceedings
References
5
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Cassellas

In a sex discrimination case that resulted in a successful settlement for the plaintiff, Ms. Jackson, her attorney, William A. Price, Esq., sought an award for attorney fees and expenses. The defendant, EEOC, objected to the fee application due to concerns about the hourly rate, lack of contemporaneous records, and vague work descriptions. Presiding Judge Curtin, after considering the complexities of the case, Mr. Price's integrity, and the issues with document production, determined that a 15% reduction for vagueness and record-keeping deficiencies was warranted. However, the court also awarded a 10% bonus for the excellent results achieved and the difficulties encountered, resulting in a net 5% reduction. The final award for attorney fees was $291,405.85, with an additional $14,785.77 reimbursed for costs.

Attorney FeesSex DiscriminationCivil Rights Act of 1991Lodestar MethodHourly Rate CalculationContemporaneous RecordsVagueness of RecordsFee ReductionFee EnhancementSettlement Agreement
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 02, 2012

Liberatore v. Liberatore

The court issued an amended decision and order concerning a child custody dispute within a matrimonial action. The father improperly obtained the notes and records of the child's psychiatrist and clinical psychologist using a HIPAA release, bypassing judicial process. The court ruled that such records, protected by patient/psychotherapist privilege (CPLR 4504, 4507), cannot be disclosed without court order, emphasizing the court's role as parens patriae and the child's best interests. It found that a parent has a conflict of interest in waiving privilege on behalf of a minor child, and that HIPAA does not grant unfettered parental access if state law prohibits it or if a professional deems it not in the child's best interest. Consequently, the court denied access to the records for both parties and their counsel, ordering their return to the providers or destruction by the attorney for the child.

Child CustodyMatrimonial LawPatient-Psychotherapist PrivilegeHIPAAJudicial ProcessParens PatriaeConfidentialityMinor's RightsBest Interests of the ChildTherapy Records
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 16, 1988

In re the Grand Jury Subpoenas Served Upon Doe

The Grand Jury of New York County issued subpoenas duces tecum to the law firm of John Doe, P. C., seeking various records. John Doe, P. C. moved to quash or modify these subpoenas, asserting attorney-client and attorney work product privileges. After an in camera review of 109 files, the court denied the attorney-client privilege claim for two files due to insufficient proof of confidentiality. For the work product privilege, the court applied the crime-fraud exception for specific subpoenaed records, citing an ongoing investigation into corruption in personal injury litigation. The court also narrowly construed the work product privilege. Consequently, the motion was granted for eight specific files found to contain protected attorney work product, while denied for the remaining files. The records not protected by privilege were ordered to be delivered to the District Attorney by August 18, 1988, following service of the decision on August 16, 1988.

attorney-client privilegework product privilegesubpoenas duces tecumGrand Jury investigationcrime-fraud exceptionin camera inspectionlegal ethicsconfidentialityevidence disclosuremotion to quash
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Ward

Petitioners, inmates in the New York State Department of Correctional Services, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the release of their medical records to Prisoners' Legal Services of New York, Inc. Initially, the request covered multiple petitioners, but compliance was granted for all except Lawrence Gaines. Gaines had authorized a law student, Barbara Schneider, to obtain his records, but the request was denied on the grounds that only attorneys or certified social workers could receive such records. The respondents argued that law students are not considered "attorneys" under relevant regulations and releasing records to them could pose liability issues. The court acknowledged the need to protect respondents and ruled that requests should be signed or countersigned by a licensed attorney from Prisoners' Legal Services. Consequently, Lawrence Gaines' petition was denied.

inmatesmedical recordscorrectional facilitieslegal assistancelaw studentsattorney representationArticle 78 proceedingaccess to informationlegal ethicsliability
References
1
Case No. Motion sequence Nos. 002 and 005
Regular Panel Decision

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Escape Media Group, Inc.

UMG Recordings, Inc. sued Escape Media Group, Inc. for common-law copyright infringement and unfair competition. Escape asserted DMCA safe harbor and CDA preemption defenses, along with Donnelly Act and tortious interference counterclaims. The court denied UMG's motion to dismiss the DMCA safe harbor defense, ruling it applies to pre-1972 recordings. However, the court granted UMG's motion to dismiss the CDA preemption defense, clarifying that the CDA's intellectual property exemption covers both federal and state laws. Additionally, Escape's Donnelly Act counterclaim was dismissed, but UMG's motions to dismiss the tortious interference counterclaims were denied, rejecting defenses like the Noerr-Pennington doctrine and economic interest.

Copyright InfringementDMCA Safe HarborPre-1972 RecordingsUnfair CompetitionCommunications Decency ActTortious InterferenceDonnelly ActNew York Common LawInternet Service ProvidersAntitrust
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Marin v. Constitution Realty, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the division of attorneys' fees among Sheryl Menkes (appellant), David B. Golomb, and Jeffrey A. Manheimer (respondents). Menkes, attorney of record for plaintiffs in a personal injury action, had agreements with both Golomb and Manheimer for fee sharing. The primary dispute concerned Golomb's share, contingent on whether the case settled at a specific mediation session (12% fee) or later (40% fee). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the contract unambiguous that the mediation session concluded on a specific date, entitling Golomb to the higher fee, and that Manheimer was entitled to 20% as per his agreement. The court rejected Menkes's arguments based on contract interpretation and professional conduct rules.

Attorney's FeesContract InterpretationMediation AgreementFee DisputePersonal Injury ActionQuantum MeruitProfessional ConductNew York LawSettlement NegotiationsStructured Settlement
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 6,713 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