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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yonkers New System Laundry, Inc. v. Simon

This case involves an action where the plaintiff sought an injunction to restrain defendants from picketing in a labor dispute and from violating negative restrictive covenants in employment contracts. The court modified an order concerning the examination before trial of individual defendants. The modified order specified subjects of inquiry including the execution of employment contracts, the defendants' conduct in sharing confidential customer information with competitors, soliciting plaintiff's customers while still employed, and colluding with competitors' drivers. The appellate court affirmed the modified order without costs, allowing the plaintiff to seek further examination if the complaint is amended to cure a defect. The decision emphasized limiting the examination to the properly stated matters in light of the Special Term's construction of the complaint.

Labor DisputeInjunctionRestrictive CovenantsEmployment ContractsTrade SecretsCustomer ListsPicketingExamination Before TrialAppellate ReviewConfidential Information
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2005

Sassower-Berlin v. Berlin

This case details an appeal by the Law Guardian for the children and the father from a Family Court order in Nassau County, entered December 12, 2005. The underlying proceeding aimed to modify a 2001 divorce judgment that had terminated the mother’s visitation rights. Appellants sought to vacate orders directing forensic examinations of the father and children, and to summarily dismiss the modification proceeding. The appellate court dismissed the appeal concerning one child as academic. It found the order for the father's examination erroneous but affirmed the discretion to order children's evaluations. However, in exercising its own discretion, the court granted the motion to vacate the forensic examinations for the minor children due to their opposition and prior trauma. The court denied the motion to summarily dismiss the mother's petition, allowing it to proceed to a hearing.

Child visitationDivorce judgment modificationForensic examinationsMental health evaluationAppellate reviewFamily Court ActChildren's welfareJudicial discretionLaw GuardianChildren's wishes
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 1983

Schuck v. State Division of Human Rights

Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, AFL-CIO, petitioned for annulment of an order by the Human Rights Appeal Board, which affirmed a determination by the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights. The Commissioner found that Local 3 discriminated against minority trainees by shunting them into a slower 'M' program, denying them the 'MIJ' shortcut to 'A' journeyman status, and providing an inferior training curriculum compared to regular apprentices, thus violating the Human Rights Law. The Commissioner issued cease and desist orders and specific directives regarding training and advancement, including a conditional provision for automatic 'A' journeyman status without examination. The Human Rights Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, upon judicial review, modified the order by deleting the directive that granted full 'A' journeyman status without further examination. Instead, the court mandated that affected individuals be afforded the opportunity to take the next scheduled 'A' examination, with appropriate preparatory instruction provided if needed. The rest of the Commissioner's order and determination were confirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DiscriminationMinority Training ProgramApprenticeshipJourneyman StatusLabor UnionAffirmative ActionNew YorkVocational TrainingEqual Opportunity
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brian VV. v. Chenango Forks Central School District

Petitioners filed a notice of claim after their six-year-old daughter was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus. The respondent, a school district, subsequently served a notice to orally examine the infant and petitioners. While petitioners submitted to examination, they refused to produce their child. The Supreme Court initially granted petitioners’ motion to strike the notice to examine the infant, deeming prior informal interviews with the child as substantial compliance. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that General Municipal Law § 50-h mandates a pre-action examination as a condition precedent. The court ruled that the prior interviews did not fulfill the statutory purpose and that the child's submission to an examination is required. Due to the child's young age, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing to determine the child's competency to testify under oath before the examination takes place.

General Municipal Law § 50-hEducation Law § 3813Infant examinationSexual assault claimCondition precedentAppellate procedureCompetency hearingSchool district liabilityPre-action discoveryOath requirement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vodopia v. Rider

The court reviewed an order granting the examination of defendant Joseph Flynn before trial. The order was modified in two key areas. Firstly, item (b) of the first ordering paragraph was amended to specify the defendants' actions related to removing the plaintiff's employees from work on contracts around May 18, 1936, and the subsequent refusal to allow union members to continue work. Secondly, the second ordering paragraph was modified to direct Joseph Flynn to produce all relevant records, minute books, and documents pertaining to the removal of workmen or work suspension on plaintiff's contracts in May 1936 at the Coney Island Sewage Treatment Plant, and any acts preventing union employment. As modified, the order was affirmed without costs by Justices Lazansky, P. J., Hagarty, Davis, Johnston, and Close.

Examination Before TrialPre-trial DiscoveryOrder ModificationAffirmed OrderLabor DisputeEmployee RemovalWork StoppageRecord ProductionUnion EmploymentContract Disputes
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Clark v. Siara Management, Inc.

Claimant, a custodian, sustained two work-related injuries in 2000, and his workers' compensation benefits were approved. In 2003, the employer's workers' compensation carrier requested an independent medical examination (IME) by Charles Totero. Claimant moved to preclude Totero's report, arguing it was improperly mailed by UMC Medical Consultants, EC., an IME services company, instead of Totero himself, in violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 137. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board denied the motion, finding UMC, as Totero's direct employer and a registered IME company, was authorized to perform administrative services like mailing reports under 12 NYCRR 300.2 (e) (1). The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that the submission substantially complied with statutory requirements.

IME Report AdmissibilityWorkers' Compensation Law § 137Procedural ComplianceMedical Report MailingIME Services CompanyAppellate AffirmationStatutory InterpretationIndependent Medical Examiner12 NYCRR 300.2
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crawford v. Ehrlich

The court reversed an order denying a motion to vacate a notice of examination before trial, subsequently granting the motion. The examination sought information regarding $2,700 in U.S. Bonds and a $1,000 insurance policy, both payable or assigned to the executrix individually. The court found that the objectant had no legal interest in these assets as they were payable to a stated beneficiary and individually assigned to the executrix. Furthermore, the objectant was not a creditor, precluding examination under the Debtor and Creditor Law. Therefore, it was deemed an improvident exercise of discretion to permit the examination given the objectant's lack of a possible legal interest.

Motion to vacateNotice of examination before trialU.S. Bonds Series EInsurance policyDecedent's estateExecutrixObjectantDebtor and Creditor LawLegal interestDiscretionary power
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 23, 1998

Armetta v. Town of Bethel

In July 1991, an employee of the Town of Bethel Highway Department sustained work-related injuries, leading to his employment termination in July 1996 due to disability. In March 1997, he sought guidance to return to work, but was directed by the Superintendent of Highways, Richard Yeomans, to consult his attorney and later the Sullivan County Director of Personnel, Richard Greene. In March 1998, the petitioner initiated a CPLR Article 78 proceeding to compel a medical examination under Civil Service Law § 71 and challenge his termination. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding procedural non-compliance with § 71 and that the termination challenge was time-barred. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that the petitioner's communication was not a formal application for a medical examination and Yeomans had not denied an exam, but merely directed him to the appropriate authority.

Workers' CompensationDisability TerminationCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Medical Examination RequestProcedural ComplianceEmployment LawJudicial ReviewAppellate AffirmationSullivan County
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Meadows, LLC

The petitioner, Bette & Cring, LLC, sought an order under Lien Law article 3-A to examine the trust books and records of Brandle Meadows, LLC concerning the "Brandle Meadows — Senior Condominium Community" project. This demand followed an initial provision of a verified statement of trust accounts, which the petitioner deemed insufficient, requesting examination of underlying documentation. The core dispute revolved around the scope of examination permitted under Lien Law § 76, specifically whether it includes underlying documents like cancelled checks and invoices beyond just the primary trust books. The court clarified that while trust books should detail required information per Lien Law § 75, if they lack sufficient detail, beneficiaries are entitled to examine underlying documentation. Finding a discrepancy in the records provided during a September 2010 examination, the court granted the petition, directing the respondent to produce complete trust books or records as mandated by Lien Law § 75 within 10 days.

Lien LawTrust FundsBooks and Records ExaminationStatutory InterpretationMechanic's LienVerified StatementArticle 3-ABeneficiary RightsScope of ExaminationFiduciary Duty
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,733 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