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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01376
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2021

Matter of Gesmer v. Administrative Bd. of the N.Y. State Unified Ct. Sys.

This case concerns the appeal of Supreme Court Justices Ellen Gesmer et al. against the Administrative Board of the New York State Unified Court System. The petitioners challenged the Board's denial of their certification for continued judicial service past the mandatory retirement age, a decision attributed to severe budgetary constraints stemming from the COVID-19 pandemic. Supreme Court initially annulled the Board's determination, citing a lack of individualized review. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, holding that the Board acted within its broad authority in considering the overall needs of the court system, including economic necessity. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and the Board's denial of certification was upheld.

Judicial CertificationMandatory Retirement AgeBudgetary ConstraintsCOVID-19 Pandemic ImpactJudicial DiscretionCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawAge Discrimination
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Estate of Toribio

The case involves an uncontested proceeding for an administrator to resign and for a successor to be appointed. The initial administrator, Jennifer, wishes to resign from her role in the estate of her three-year-old sister, Jannin, who died tragically. She requests the court appoint their father, Domingo Toribio, as the new administrator. The primary legal question addressed by Surrogate Kristin Booth Glen is whether Mr. Toribio, who only speaks, reads, and writes in Spanish, is qualified to serve as a fiduciary under SCPA 707 (2), which allows a court discretion to declare a person unable to read and write English ineligible. The court examines the legislative intent, relevant case law, and societal changes regarding disability and non-English-speaking populations, particularly in New York City. The opinion concludes that English language competence should not be a prerequisite for fiduciary status unless no reasonable accommodations are possible, and grants the application for Jennifer's resignation and Domingo Toribio's appointment, noting he and his counsel have established satisfactory communication.

Estate AdministrationSurrogate's CourtFiduciary AppointmentLanguage BarrierEnglish ProficiencySCPA 707 (2)Multilingual SocietyJudicial DiscretionCivil RightsAccess to Justice
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 20, 2004

In re Whitney H.

In three child protective proceedings, the mother appealed disposition orders from the Family Court, Queens County. The court had found she neglected her children, placing Whitney H. and Brittany J. with the Administration for Children's Services and Royesha B. with her biological father. The appeals concerning Whitney H. and Brittany J.'s placement were dismissed as academic because the placement period had expired. However, the orders of disposition regarding Whitney H. and Brittany J. were affirmed insofar as reviewed, and the order for Royesha B. was fully affirmed. The court found that the petitioner established prima facie evidence of neglect due to the mother's alcohol abuse, citing an incident where she struck Brittany J. and locked Whitney H. outside.

Child NeglectAlcohol AbuseFamily Court Act Article 10Custody PlacementPrima Facie EvidenceNegative InferenceAppellate ReviewExpired PlacementFact-Finding OrderDisposition Order
References
5
Case No. No. 10 Civ. 7405
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2011

Trivedi v. N.Y.S. Unified Court System Office of Court Administration

Plaintiffs Dhiri Trivedi, Hrishikesh Bhattacharjee, Douga Ba, Pa B.F. Drammeh, and Hamadou Seek, former court interpreters, sued their employer, New York Unified Court System Office of Court Administration (OCA), and their union, District Council 37 Local 1070 (DC 37). They alleged employment discrimination based on race, national origin, age, and disability, and retaliation after being terminated for failing a new English proficiency examination. Magistrate Judge Maas recommended granting DC 37's motions entirely and partially granting/denying OCA's motions, dismissing most claims due to sovereign immunity or failure to state a claim, but allowing Title VII discrimination claims to proceed against OCA. District Judge Crotty adopted the R&R, affirming the dismissal of all claims against DC 37 and largely upholding Magistrate Judge Maas's recommendations regarding OCA, allowing only the Title VII discrimination claims against OCA to continue.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADEANYCHRLNYSHRLADASection 1983Sovereign ImmunityReport and RecommendationMagistrate Judge
References
84
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gold-Greenberger v. Human Resources Administration

The petitioner, a candidate for a local school board, was denied access by the Human Resources Administration (HRA) to a homeless shelter to solicit signatures for his nominating petition. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially granted the petitioner access, ruling that restricting signature solicitation while allowing voter registration would cause no additional disruption. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, categorizing the homeless shelter as a 'nonpublic forum.' The court concluded that HRA's denial of access for political campaigning was a reasonable restriction, consistent with the shelter's purpose of providing temporary residential care and services, and protected the privacy interests of residents. The court noted that the petitioner could still campaign outside the shelter.

First AmendmentPublic ForumNonpublic ForumFreedom of SpeechHomeless ShelterPolitical CampaigningVoter RegistrationAccess RestrictionGovernment PropertyMootness Exception
References
18
Case No. Z docket
Regular Panel Decision

Administration for Children's Services v. Silvia S.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS), the petitioner, moved the court for an order requiring the production of psychological, psychiatric, and medical records of the respondent, the mother of Daniel C. No child neglect or abuse petition had been filed. ACS cited the respondent's history of seizure disorder and postpartum depression, and alleged neglect based on non-compliance with medication and periods of homelessness. The court denied the motion, finding that ACS had not demonstrated a cause of action, and that the request for records was an improper attempt to determine if a cause of action existed. The court further held that the interest of justice in this matter did not outweigh the respondent's right to confidentiality under HIPAA and Mental Hygiene Law § 33.13.

Family LawChild NeglectPre-action DisclosureMedical RecordsPsychiatric RecordsConfidentialityHIPAAMental Hygiene LawSeizure DisorderPostpartum Depression
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n

The case addresses the arbitrability of a dispute between the Unified Court System (petitioner) and a respondent union. The petitioner had designated three newly hired Supervising Court Attorneys as "managerial/confidential," asserting that this classification falls under the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as per the Taylor Law and not within the scope of arbitration. Conversely, the respondent union argued that the matter should be arbitrated under the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) recognition clause and general arbitration provisions. The court applied a two-step analysis to assess arbitrability, concluding that there were no statutory or public policy prohibitions preventing arbitration of the "managerial or confidential" designation. It also found a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the CBA's provisions regarding new positions. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's motion to stay arbitration and granted the respondent's cross-motion, directing the parties to proceed with arbitration.

Public Employment ArbitrationManagerial/Confidential Employee DesignationCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Arbitrability DisputeUnion RepresentationGrievance ProcedureNew York Court System
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Morataya

The case involves a motion by property owners, Mr. Abdus Shahid and Ms. Halima Ansari, to vacate a March 13, 2016 order that appointed a Real Property Actions and Proceedings Law article 7-A administrator for their property at 284 Cooper Street, Brooklyn. They sought to renew their previous denied motion, alleging fraud by the tenants' attorney and the administrator, and claiming they now have a plan and financial stability to manage the property responsibly. The court, presided over by Judge Susan F. Avery, denied the motion. The court found the allegations of fraud unsubstantiated and the financial evidence submitted by the movants to be unauthenticated, incomplete, and inconsistent with the administrator's reports. Furthermore, the court took judicial notice of numerous outstanding housing violations in another property owned by the movants, 455 Tompkins Avenue, in a related case (Klenfner v Shahid). Applying the maxim falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, the court concluded it was not in the best interest of the building or the public to remove the 7-A administrator. The movants were granted leave to renew their motion if they successfully defend against the allegations in the Klenfner action.

Property ManagementLandlord-Tenant DisputeArticle 7-A AdministratorMotion to VacateFraud AllegationsFinancial StabilityHousing ViolationsJudicial NoticeDue ProcessProperty Ownership
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maldonado v. Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration

This case addresses whether a dismissed action, initially brought against a nonexistent entity with improper service, can be refiled against the intended defendant under CPLR 306-b (b). Plaintiff Maldonado was injured in 1992 and filed an action in 1995, naming "Maryland Rail Commuter Service Administration" based on signage, and attempting service on a temporary worker. This first action was dismissed because the named entity did not exist and service was ineffective. Plaintiffs then filed a second action, correctly naming "Maryland Mass Transit Administration." The Supreme Court allowed the second action, but the Appellate Division reversed, holding the first action was not timely commenced. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the resuscitative remedy of CPLR 306-b (b) is unavailable when the initial action failed to name an existing entity and lacked proper service, thus the first action was not "timely commenced" against the intended defendant.

Dismissed ActionNonexistent EntityImproper ServiceCPLR 306-b (b)Statute of LimitationsCommencement of ActionPersonal JurisdictionCure of DeficiencyAmendment of ComplaintAppellate Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spiotta v. Liberty Mutual Insurance

The petitioner, injured while employed by United Parcel Service, sought to obtain a medical report from Dr. Alex Strasser, who examined her on behalf of her employer and its insurance carrier, after being denied access. She initiated a proceeding in Supreme Court under CPLR article 31 to enforce her right to the report in furtherance of her workers’ compensation claim. The court examined the scope of CPLR article 31, concluding it generally applies to judicial proceedings and not exclusively to workers’ compensation claims which fall under a separate administrative framework. Emphasizing principles of judicial restraint, exhaustion of administrative remedies, and primary administrative jurisdiction, the court determined that the Workers’ Compensation Board, possessing broad powers to supervise its proceedings and compel disclosure, is the appropriate tribunal for such matters. Consequently, the petitioner’s request for relief in Supreme Court was denied without prejudice.

Workers' Compensation LawCPLR Article 31DisclosureAdministrative RemediesPrimary Administrative JurisdictionMedical ReportsJudicial ProceedingsSupreme CourtProcedural MotionStatutory Interpretation
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 22,656 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