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. 8074/89
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Palazo

The defendant, charged with criminal possession of a controlled substance, moved to have her attorney present at her presentence interview with the Department of Probation. This request challenged the Department's Executive Policy and Procedure No. 20-2-83, which generally disallows counsel's presence during such interviews. The defendant argued the policy was unconstitutional and that exceptional circumstances, including her low education, non-English speaking status, emotional state, and spousal privilege concerns, warranted an exception. The court, presided over by Judge Norman George, denied the motion, upholding the constitutionality of the policy. The court reasoned that the presentence interview is a non-adversarial information-gathering stage and that New York's statutory scheme adequately ensures fundamental fairness without requiring counsel's presence at the interview itself, further concluding that no exceptional circumstances were demonstrated.

Criminal ProcedureRight to CounselPresentence InterviewDepartment of Probation PolicyConstitutional LawSixth AmendmentSentencing StageExceptional CircumstancesSpousal PrivilegeDue Process
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Grimmer v. Lord Day & Lord

This case is a class action brought under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) by former employees of the law firm Lord Day & Lord, Barrett Smith. The employees alleged that the firm violated the WARN Act by closing its offices without providing the required sixty days' advance notice. Lord Day asserted statutory exceptions, specifically the 'faltering company' and 'unforeseeable business circumstances' exceptions, as affirmative defenses. Plaintiffs moved for partial summary judgment, contending that Lord Day's notice was insufficient as it merely recited the language of a statutory exception without providing a 'brief statement of the basis' for reducing the notice period. The court agreed with the plaintiffs, ruling that simply citing a statutory exception is inadequate and that specific factual basis is required, thus granting the motion and striking Lord Day's affirmative defenses.

WARN Actplant closingmass layoffnotice periodunforeseeable business circumstancesfaltering company exceptionaffirmative defensessummary judgmentstatutory interpretationemployee rights
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lauber v. Conklin

Plaintiff, a construction worker, was severely injured after falling from a roof during renovations on a single-family home owned by Helena and Emanuel Polak. The plaintiff sued the Polaks under Labor Law §§ 240 and 241. The Polaks and a third-party defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing that the statutory exception for owners of one and two-family dwellings who do not direct or control the work applied. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment, a decision the plaintiff appealed. The Appellate Court affirmed, holding that the 'dwelling' exception in Labor Law §§ 240 and 241 includes unoccupied houses undergoing renovation, supporting the legislative intent to protect homeowners from strict liability in such circumstances.

Workers' CompensationConstruction AccidentLabor Law 240Labor Law 241Homeowner LiabilityStatutory ExceptionSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewUnoccupied DwellingRenovation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Clark v. Dunn

This case involves an appeal from a Family Court order concerning child custody. The petitioner sought custody due to an alleged change in circumstances, specifically the respondent's relocation to Alaska and the children residing with him for significant periods. The Family Court had dismissed the petitioner's application and granted sole legal custody to the respondent, allowing her to remove the children to Alaska. The appellate court reversed this decision, finding that the Family Court abused its discretion and that the relocation was not in the children's best interest, as the respondent failed to demonstrate exceptional circumstances justifying the move away from the noncustodial parent and their extended family. The court granted joint legal custody to both parties, with primary physical custody awarded to the petitioner.

child custodyrelocation disputebest interest standardjoint legal custodyprimary physical custodyvisitation rightsFamily Court Act Article 6changed circumstancesappellate reversalparental relocation
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doe v. Del Rio

Plaintiffs Jane and John Doe, a married couple, filed a civil rights action pseudonymously against New York City police officers and the City of New York, alleging police brutality and sexual abuse. Defendants moved to revoke the plaintiffs' permission to proceed pseudonymously, arguing for disclosure of their true names based on the public's right of access to judicial proceedings. The court balanced the plaintiffs' claimed privacy interests, particularly Jane Doe's, against the strong presumption of openness in judicial proceedings. While acknowledging the sensitive nature of the sexual assault allegations and potential psychological harm, the court found the alleged acts not exceptional enough to justify anonymity without a specific link between public disclosure of names and the predicted harm. Ultimately, the court granted the defendants' motion, requiring the plaintiffs to disclose their true names, concluding that the case did not present exceptional circumstances warranting pseudonymous litigation.

Pseudonymous PleadingCivil Rights ActionPolice BrutalitySexual AbusePrivacy RightsPublic Access to CourtsFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 10(a)First AmendmentPsychological HarmPTSD
References
25
Case No. 21-mc-102
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2014

Avila v. Abatement Professionals

Eight plaintiffs, victims of World Trade Center cleanup injuries, sued Battery Park City Authority (BPCA) for negligence and New York Labor Law violations. Their initial claims were dismissed for untimely notice. The New York Legislature enacted 'Jimmy Nolan’s Law' to revive these time-barred claims. BPCA moved for summary judgment, arguing the law was unconstitutional as applied to it. The court granted BPCA’s motion, ruling that Jimmy Nolan’s Law was an unconstitutional 'extreme exercise of legislative power' because the circumstances did not present the 'exceptional circumstances' or 'serious injustice' required to revive time-barred claims under the New York State Constitution’s Due Process Clause. The court found that New York's 'discovery rule' for latent injuries already provided adequate protection, distinguishing this case from prior instances where revival statutes were upheld. Consequently, the plaintiffs’ claims against BPCA were dismissed.

World Trade Center9/11 cleanuptoxic dustlatent injuriesstatute of limitationsrevival statutedue processNew York State Constitutionpublic benefit corporationgovernment liability
References
51
Case No. Nos. 56 & 58
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 2020

Matter of Seawright v. Board of Elections / Matter of Hawatmeh v. State Board of Elections

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases, *Matter of Seawright* and *Matter of Hawatmeh*, to resolve a departmental split regarding the interpretation of Election Law filing deadlines during the COVID-19 pandemic. In *Seawright*, the Appellate Division, First Department, had excused a candidate's belated filing of a cover sheet and certificate of acceptance due to COVID-19 related illness and quarantine, deeming it not a fatal defect. Conversely, in *Hawatmeh*, the Appellate Division, Third Department, found a candidate's late filing of a certificate of acceptance to be a fatal defect despite pandemic circumstances. The Court of Appeals reversed the *Seawright* decision and affirmed the *Hawatmeh* decision, holding that Election Law § 1-106 (2) mandates strict compliance with filing deadlines. The Court concluded that the failure to timely file constitutes a fatal defect that courts cannot excuse, even under unique or extenuating circumstances like the COVID-19 pandemic, emphasizing that it is the legislature's role to fashion exceptions to the law. Dissenting judges argued for a more flexible interpretation based on legislative intent behind pandemic-related laws and prior Election Law reforms, allowing for substantial compliance during the unprecedented health crisis.

Election LawCOVID-19 PandemicFiling DeadlinesFatal DefectStrict ComplianceBallot AccessJudicial DiscretionLegislative IntentAppellate Division ConflictQuarantine Requirements
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caldaro v. Float No. 187

The libelant, employed as a stowman on Float No. 187, was injured due to the vessel's unseaworthy condition and subsequently filed a libel. This action follows a previous case where the libelant sued his employer, Baltimore and Ohio Railroad Company, for the same injuries. In that prior action, the complaint was dismissed, with Judge J. Edward Lumbard ruling that the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act provided the exclusive remedy. Citing a similar precedent, the court in the present case sustained the respondent's exceptions to the libel, leading to its dismissal.

Seaman InjuryUnseaworthinessLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActExclusive RemedyAdmiralty LawMaritime LawLibelExceptionsCase DismissalFederal District Court
References
4
Case No. ADJ9803332
Regular
Dec 06, 2019

DIETRA BURTS FORD (Deceased) vs. FRESNO UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a petition for reconsideration because it was filed against an interlocutory order, not a final decision. The Board also denied a petition for removal, finding no evidence of substantial prejudice or irreparable harm. Removal is an extraordinary remedy granted only in exceptional circumstances. The WCJ's report adequately addressed the petitioner's arguments.

Petition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalFinal OrderSubstantive RightThreshold IssueInterlocutory OrderProcedural DecisionEvidentiary IssueExtraordinary RemedySubstantial Prejudice
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 1,204 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