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

In re Romano

Respondent, Benedict F. Romano, an attorney admitted to practice in New York, maintained an office within the First Judicial Department. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee (DDC) moved for his immediate suspension based on substantial admissions of professional misconduct. Ms. A., a client, reported that respondent conducted an intimate physical examination during an initial consultation for a workers' compensation case. Respondent admitted to the examination but denied impropriety, claiming it was essential for case assessment. A Hearing Panel sustained the charge and recommended a two-year suspension. Subsequently, another client, Ms. D., accused respondent of similar misconduct, taking photographs while improperly touching her. The DDC's motion for immediate suspension was granted by the Court, finding that respondent's actions, and his inability to comprehend their impropriety, posed an immediate threat to the public interest, constituting professional misconduct under 22 NYCRR 603.4 (e) (1) (ii) and (iii).

Attorney DisciplinaryProfessional MisconductSexual MisconductSuspension of AttorneyDR 1-102 (A) (8)22 NYCRR 603.4Fitness to Practice LawUncontested EvidenceSubstantial Admission Under OathDisciplinary Committee
References
0
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03897 [195 AD3d 1296]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2021

Matter of Seeber v. City of Albany Police Dept.

Claimant, a police officer named Matthew Seeber, filed a workers' compensation claim for stress, anxiety, and posttraumatic stress disorder following a suspension related to an Internal Affairs investigation. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge ruled the claim non-compensable, citing Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (7), as the psychological injury was deemed a direct consequence of a lawful disciplinary action. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this decision. On appeal, the claimant's argument that the suspension was not a disciplinary action was found unpreserved for review, as he had previously argued it was a disciplinary action at lower administrative levels. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision.

Police OfficerWork-related StressPosttraumatic Stress DisorderDisciplinary ActionPersonnel DecisionWorkers' Compensation Law § 2 (7)Claim CompensabilityAdministrative ReviewAppellate ReviewUnpreserved Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Konigsberg

Respondent, an attorney, pleaded guilty in federal court to making a false statement to a government agent, a federal felony, during an investigation into insurance fraud by his clients. The Departmental Disciplinary Committee initiated proceedings to disbar him, but the Court had previously imposed an interim suspension and referred the matter for a sanction hearing. Despite findings that the respondent admitted preparing fraudulent documents and back-dating contracts, significant mitigating factors were presented. These included his full and complete cooperation with federal authorities even under death threats, his acceptance of responsibility, lack of prior disciplinary history, and his relatively limited role in the overall fraud. Ultimately, the Court disaffirmed the Hearing Panel's recommendation for a five-year suspension and instead imposed a three-year suspension from the practice of law in New York, retroactive to November 19, 1992.

Attorney MisconductDisciplinary ActionFalse StatementFederal FelonyProfessional EthicsAttorney SuspensionJudiciary LawMitigating CircumstancesPer Curiam OpinionInsurance Fraud
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connelly v. Griffin

The court confirmed the disciplinary determination against the petitioner. The determination of guilt was based on the recreation worker's testimony regarding threatening statements made by the petitioner in the gym, which the worker perceived as directed at him due to a prior disagreement. The petitioner's and inmate witnesses' contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim of res judicata, clarifying that a previous disciplinary determination, arising from a guilty plea for abusive statements made to the recreation worker on a different day, was a separate incident and thus had no preclusive effect on the current disciplinary action. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

inmate disciplinedisciplinary hearingthreatening statementscredibility issueres judicatacorrectional facilitiesadministrative determinationappellate reviewevidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randall v. Toll

Petitioner, a senior financial secretary at SUNY Stony Brook, was suspended without pay under Civil Service Law section 75 following charges of misappropriation. He challenged the suspension, arguing it violated his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights by denying a pre-suspension hearing. The court evaluated the constitutionality of Civil Service Law section 75(3), which permits temporary suspension without pay pending charge determination. It concluded that the state's interest did not justify postponing a hearing, especially since the petitioner had been reassigned from his sensitive role. Consequently, the court vacated the suspension and ordered the petitioner's immediate reinstatement, emphasizing the necessity of a prior hearing for public employee suspensions.

Due ProcessFourteenth AmendmentCivil Service LawPublic Employee RightsSuspension Without PayPre-Suspension HearingGovernmental InterestProperty RightsReinstatementMisconduct Charges
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 25, 2005

In re Kuhnreich

Respondent Robert M. Kuhnreich, an attorney admitted in 1986, faced disciplinary charges in April 2004 for neglecting four legal matters, improper withdrawal, failing to return unearned fees, and conduct reflecting adversely on his fitness as a lawyer. He admitted liability to most charges. A Referee recommended a two-year suspension, citing his disciplinary history, while a Hearing Panel increased the recommendation to three years due to a pattern of misconduct and lack of medical evidence for psychiatric claims. The court confirmed the findings, modifying the suspension to two years, noting his abandonment of practice without client notification and unpersuasive psychiatric claims, despite his cooperation and remorse.

Attorney misconductProfessional responsibilityNeglect of legal mattersAbandonment of law practiceFailure to return unearned feesSuspension from practiceDisciplinary historyEthical violationsNew York disciplinary proceedingAttorney fitness
References
3
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. CA 11-01225
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 15, 2012

BOARD OF ED. OF DUDEE CENTRAL, MTR. OF

This case involves an appeal from a judgment concerning disciplinary charges against a tenured teacher, Douglas Coleman, by the Board of Education of Dundee Central School District. An initial Hearing Officer's award, which included a six-month suspension and continued health benefits, was challenged by the Board. The Supreme Court partially granted the Board's petition, vacating the dismissal of six specifications and the order for continued health benefits, and remitted the matter for further consideration. On remittal, the Hearing Officer reimposed the same penalty based on an erroneous legal interpretation regarding counseling memoranda. The Supreme Court then vacated this penalty and remitted the matter to a different hearing officer for penalty imposition. The Appellate Division affirmed both judgments of the Supreme Court, holding that counseling memoranda are not disciplinary actions and that the Hearing Officer exceeded authority by ordering continued health benefits during suspension.

ArbitrationTeacher DisciplineSchool BoardEducation LawCounseling MemorandaJudicial ReviewPenaltyHealth Insurance BenefitsAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Padberg v. McGrath-McKechnie

This case addresses a legal challenge to "Operation Refusal," an initiative by the New York City Taxi and Limousine Commission (TLC) aimed at increasing disciplinary actions against taxi drivers for service refusals. Plaintiffs, including individual taxi drivers and the New York Taxi Workers Alliance, contended that two policies of Operation Refusal—summary license suspension and post-hearing suspension/revocation—violated their Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. The Court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs regarding the summary suspension policy, ruling it unconstitutional for depriving drivers of their licenses without adequate prior or post-suspension hearings. However, the Court largely denied the challenge to the post-hearing suspension/revocation policy, finding the rule not unconstitutionally vague, but allowed discovery on potential bias among TLC Administrative Law Judges. A preliminary injunction was issued, ordering the return of summarily suspended licenses to drivers awaiting a merits determination.

Due ProcessTaxi RegulationLicense SuspensionLicense RevocationCivil Rights Litigation42 U.S.C. § 1983Administrative Law JudgeSummary Judgment MotionPreliminary InjunctionGovernment Overreach
References
63
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04264 [231 AD3d 245]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2024

Matter of Filardi

The respondent, Therese Marie Filardi, an attorney, faced disciplinary action in New York following a suspension in Massachusetts for professional misconduct. The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court suspended her for 10 months due to an unauthorized charge on a client's credit card and failures in maintaining her IOLTA account and client communication. In a reciprocal discipline proceeding, the New York Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the matter. Despite the respondent's request for a lesser, nunc pro tunc suspension, the New York court imposed a one-year suspension. This decision was based on the underlying misconduct and Filardi's admissions, with the suspension commencing September 20, 2024.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductreciprocal disciplineIOLTA violationsunauthorized credit card chargesclient communicationbar suspensionMassachusetts barNew York barethical violations
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 448 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