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

Schairer v. Schairer

The wife filed a motion to disqualify the law firm of Sari Friedman, P.C. from representing her husband in their ongoing divorce proceedings, citing a conflict of interest. This conflict stemmed from Ms. Friedman's prior representation of the court-appointed custody forensic expert in his own divorce case in 1995. The husband cross-moved to disqualify the same forensic expert, alleging potential bias against police officers and Ms. Friedman's previous representation of the expert. The court found a clear appearance of a conflict of interest, as Ms. Friedman could not effectively cross-examine her former client, the expert, without potentially using privileged confidential information. Consequently, the court granted the wife's motion to disqualify Sari Friedman, P.C. and denied the husband's cross-motion, determining that any claims of bias against the expert could be addressed during trial.

DivorceAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestForensic ExpertCustodySpousal DisputeProfessional EthicsConfidentialityLegal RepresentationJudicial Opinion
References
10
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06069 [199 AD3d 438]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2021

Matter of Ashanti v. New York City Conflicts of Interest Bd.

The Appellate Division, First Department, confirmed the determination of the New York City Conflicts of Interest Board, finding that petitioner Karl J. Ashanti violated New York City Charter and City rule provisions. Ashanti was ordered to pay an aggregate civil penalty of $8,500. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that Ashanti used his City position to gain personal advantage in negotiations on behalf of his wife and utilized City letterhead to advance a legal position contrary to the City's interests. The court rejected the petitioner's due process and agency bias claims, concluding that the penalty imposed did not shock the conscience.

Conflicts of InterestPublic OfficialsEthical ViolationsCivil PenaltyDue ProcessAgency BiasSubstantial EvidenceAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law JudgeCredibility Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Filippi v. Elmont Union Free School District Board of Education

Plaintiff Karen Filippi filed an employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against her employer, the Elmont Union Free School District Board of Education, Superintendent Al Harper, and administrator Robert Geras. Defendants moved to disqualify plaintiff's counsel, the Law Offices of Steven A. Morelli and Eric Tilton, due to a conflict of interest. An associate at the Morelli Firm, Lorraine Ferrigno, also serves as the Vice President of the defendant Board of Education. The Court found a clear and unwaivable conflict of interest under New York State Rules of Professional Conduct Rule 1.7 and Rule 1.11, as Ferrigno had a fiduciary duty to the Board and personally received letters regarding Filippi's claims. Despite screening measures, the Court deemed them insufficient in the small, six-lawyer firm and concluded the conflict was non-waivable. The motion to disqualify both the Morelli Firm and Eric Tilton, due to his close affiliation, was granted.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationFiduciary DutyProfessional EthicsNew York State Rules of Professional ConductJudicial DiscretionSmall Law FirmScreening Procedures
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. McLaughlin

The People moved to disqualify the Legal Aid Society from representing the defendant, Mr. McLaughlin, on the grounds that the Society had previously represented a key prosecution witness, Mr. Luis Elicier. The defense argued against the motion, citing timeliness and claiming no actual conflict of interest. The court, presided over by Justice Carol Berkman, found an actual conflict due to the Society's prior representation of Elicier and their stated intent to implicate him in the current crimes. Despite the defendant's desire to retain his chosen counsel and the Society's proposed 'Chinese Wall' defense, the court ruled that the conflict of interest was undeniable and ordered the disqualification of the Legal Aid Society. The decision emphasized the importance of maintaining the integrity of the justice system and protecting the former client's confidences, overriding the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice in this instance.

Attorney disqualificationConflict of interest (legal)Sixth Amendment right to counselAttorney-client privilegeEthical violationsCriminal defenseProsecution witnessFormer client representationJudicial ethicsNew York courts
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 08, 1997

Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners v. PMNC

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County, which denied the defendants' motion to disqualify the plaintiffs' counsel in a breach of contract action. The dispute involves Brooklyn Navy Yard Cogeneration Partners, L.P. (BNYCP) and PMNC, a joint venture, regarding the construction of a cogeneration facility in Brooklyn. BNYCP also sought to enforce a guaranty from The Parsons Corporation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the representation of a separate subsidiary of The Parsons Corporation on unrelated matters would not adversely affect the plaintiffs' counsel's independent judgment or involve conflicting interests.

Contract DisputeBreach of ContractAttorney DisqualificationProfessional ResponsibilityAppellate ReviewJoint VentureGuaranty EnforcementLegal EthicsJudicial DecisionAffirmation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acunto v. Stewart Avenue Gardens, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which held in abeyance her motion to dismiss certain affirmative defenses pending a Workers' Compensation Board determination on her employment status. The order also denied her motion to disqualify the defendant's attorneys due to a conflict of interest. The appellate court dismissed the appeal regarding the motion to dismiss, deeming it non-appealable as of right. Additionally, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision to deny the disqualification motion, finding that the plaintiff did not sufficiently demonstrate a conflict of interest.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation BoardAttorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestAppellate ProcedureMotion to DismissAffirmative DefensesJudicial DiscretionAppealabilitySupreme Court Order
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Finkel v. Frattarelli Bros., Inc.

This Memorandum and Order addresses the defendants' motion to disqualify plaintiffs' counsel, Cohen, Weiss & Simon, LLP. Plaintiffs, trustees of various Local 282 welfare and pension funds, alleged that defendants Frattarelli Brothers Inc., Podesta Trucking Corp., Vincent Frattarelli, and Rogelio Podesta failed to pay required contributions due to a fraudulent double-breasted operation. Defendants sought disqualification based on the witness-advocate rule and an alleged conflict of interest, claiming counsel might be called to testify on industry standards for double-breasting and prior inaction by the Funds. The Court denied the motion, finding that the defendants failed to prove that counsel's testimony was necessary or that it would be prejudicial to their clients. Furthermore, the Court dismissed the conflict of interest claims as speculative and without merit.

Disqualification of CounselWitness-Advocate RuleConflict of InterestProfessional EthicsERISA LitigationFraudulent SchemeDouble-Breasted OperationTrust FundsCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion Denial
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Wallert

A criminal defendant was charged with multiple offenses, including RICO and fraud, leading the government to file a motion to disqualify his trial counsel, Patrick M. Wall. The government argued that Wall had a conflict of interest because he had received a $10,000 fee related to a fraudulent mortgage loan transaction involving the defendant and was listed as the defendant's attorney on the loan application. Additionally, Wall had previously represented a co-conspirator and continued to represent entities related to the defendant in a civil RICO proceeding. The court found that Wall would likely be called as a witness, potentially prejudicing the defendant and undermining the integrity of the trial. Despite the defendant's offer to waive the conflict, the court granted the government's motion, disqualifying Wall as trial counsel but allowing him to participate in the defense without appearing at trial, and instructed the defendant to secure new counsel.

Disqualification of CounselConflict of InterestRICOEmbezzlementMail FraudTax EvasionSixth AmendmentEthical StandardsWitness-Advocate RuleWaiver of Conflict
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PIERCE & WEISS, LLP. v. Subrogation Partners LLC

Plaintiff Pierce & Weiss, LLP sued Subrogation Partners LLC, AON Recovery, Inc., and AON Re, Inc. for unpaid legal fees related to a breach of an attorney-client retainer contract. The central issue revolved around a motion for admission pro hac vice filed by attorneys Brian Letofsky and Daniel Watkins, seeking to represent Pierce & Weiss. Defendants opposed, arguing a conflict of interest due to Mr. Letofsky's prior and ongoing representation of Subrogation and AON in other matters. The Court determined that AON was a current client and Subrogation a former client of Mr. Letofsky, thus creating a conflict of interest due to divided loyalties. Consequently, the Court denied the motions for admission pro hac vice for both Mr. Letofsky and his partner, Mr. Watkins, disqualifying their firm, Watkins & Letofsky, from representing the plaintiff.

Attorney DisqualificationConflict of InterestPro Hac Vice MotionAttorney-Client RelationshipLegal EthicsLaw Firm RepresentationFee DisputeSubrogationRetainer AgreementProfessional Conduct Rules
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Isaacson

This is a criminal prosecution where defendant Julius Isaacson, a union official, was charged with embezzling and conspiring to embezzle money from a labor union and employee benefit funds through an alleged kickback scheme. The Government moved to disqualify Isaacson’s counsel due to a potential conflict of interest, as the attorney and his firm previously represented some of the alleged victim entities. Despite Isaacson’s waiver of his right to conflict-free counsel, the Government argued that the conflict was intolerable. The court denied the motion without prejudice, reasoning that the factual allegations focused on external conduct, there was insufficient information at the early pretrial stage, and counsel had largely withdrawn from representing the victim entities. The court conditioned continued representation on counsel fully withdrawing from the remaining entity and attesting to no outstanding fees.

Criminal ProsecutionConflict of InterestAttorney DisqualificationEmbezzlementUnion FundsEmployee Benefit PlansERISAKickback SchemeObstruction of JusticeSixth Amendment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 2,807 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