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
Aug 24, 1999

Town of Hempstead v. Inc. Village of Atlantic Beach

This case involves two related actions arising from inter-municipal agreements for waste disposal services. The defendants appealed from initial court orders concerning their obligations to pay minimum waste commitment tonnage fees and their entitlement to various credits, including those for private carters, recyclable materials, and yard waste. The plaintiffs cross-appealed regarding the methodology for calculating yard waste credits and the fees for using the Town's transfer facility. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, issued an initial order and a subsequent amended order upon reargument, clarifying several points. The Appellate Division affirmed the amended order, holding that the agreements unambiguously required villages to pay minimum tonnage fees regardless of actual waste delivered. The court also determined that the villages were only obligated to pay transfer facility fees based on actual waste delivered and that any ambiguities regarding yard waste credits should be interpreted against the Town as the drafter of the agreements.

Inter-municipal agreementsWaste disposalSummary judgmentContract interpretationMinimum commitment feesYard waste creditTransfer facility feesUnambiguous agreementsExtrinsic evidenceAmbiguity construction
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 1993

Krug v. Offerman, Fallon, Mahoney & Cassano

The plaintiff, an attorney, sued the law firm Offerman, Fallon, Mahoney & Cassano and its partner Leo J. Fallon for breach of contract regarding a fee-splitting agreement. The plaintiff was retained by the firm to represent their client, Charles Hahn, in workers' compensation hearings, specifically to oppose the claim and preserve Hahn's personal injury action. The plaintiff's efforts were successful, leading to a $1.8 million settlement in the personal injury case and a $600,000 contingent fee for the firm. The firm subsequently refused to pay the plaintiff a percentage of the fee. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and the invalidity of the fee-splitting agreement under the Code of Professional Responsibility. The Supreme Court denied the motions, finding the action was not barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and the fee agreement was enforceable. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the plaintiff's claim was for services rendered in the personal injury action and that a fee-splitting agreement does not require a writing unless joint responsibility is assumed, which was not the case here.

breach of contractfee-splitting agreementworkers' compensationpersonal injury litigationattorney compensationjurisdictionprofessional ethicsappellate reviewcontingent feeslegal malpractice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 1984

In re the Estate of Makudera

This case centers on a dispute over attorney fees following the death of Orlando J. Makudera, Sr., in an automobile accident. Initially, Randall L. Reed, a Chenango County attorney, and an unnamed Rhode Island attorney agreed to an equal split of fees from a workers' compensation claim and a federal civil action. After Peter J. McBride was retained as local trial counsel, all three attorneys signed an agreement stipulating a one-third split of all generated fees, specifically including those from the workers' compensation claim. When the Rhode Island attorney (respondent) objected to his $25,000 compensation fee being included in the gross fees for division, the petitioners (Reed and McBride) sought an order from the Surrogate’s Court. The Surrogate's Court granted summary judgment to the petitioners, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal, citing the respondent's failure to present admissible evidence controverting the signed fee agreement.

Attorney FeesFee AgreementSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation LienContract DisputeAncillary ProbateExecutrix DutiesLegal EthicsEvidence Admissibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Relativity Fashion, LLC

This Memorandum Opinion addresses a motion for attorneys' fees and expenses filed by Relativity Media, LLC (and its affiliates RML Distribution Domestic, LLC, Armored Car Productions, LLC, and DR Productions, LLC, collectively 'Relativity') and Mr. Ryan Kavanaugh against Netflix, Inc. The dispute arose from Netflix's refusal to execute 'Date Extension Amendments' related to a License Agreement, prompting Relativity to seek relief under Section 1142 of the Bankruptcy Code. The Court previously ruled that Netflix was barred by res judicata and judicial estoppel from asserting its claimed contractual rights to distribute films before theatrical release. In this opinion, the Court determined that Relativity was the 'prevailing party' under California Civil Code Section 1717 and the License Agreement's fee provision. Consequently, Relativity is entitled to reimbursement for its own reasonable attorneys' fees and litigation expenses. However, the Court denied Mr. Kavanaugh's request for reimbursement of his counsel's fees and expenses, concluding that he was not a party to the License Agreement and did not meet the exceptions for non-signatories to recover fees. The Court awarded Relativity $818,547.48, comprising $795,732.50 in attorneys’ fees and $22,814.98 in litigation expenses, against Netflix.

Attorneys FeesLitigation ExpensesContract LawCalifornia Civil Code Section 1717Bankruptcy Code Section 1142Prevailing PartyLodestar MethodHourly RatesJudicial EstoppelRes Judicata
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2014

Marin v. Constitution Realty, LLC

This case involves an appeal from an order regarding the division of attorneys' fees among Sheryl Menkes (appellant), David B. Golomb, and Jeffrey A. Manheimer (respondents). Menkes, attorney of record for plaintiffs in a personal injury action, had agreements with both Golomb and Manheimer for fee sharing. The primary dispute concerned Golomb's share, contingent on whether the case settled at a specific mediation session (12% fee) or later (40% fee). The court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the contract unambiguous that the mediation session concluded on a specific date, entitling Golomb to the higher fee, and that Manheimer was entitled to 20% as per his agreement. The court rejected Menkes's arguments based on contract interpretation and professional conduct rules.

Attorney's FeesContract InterpretationMediation AgreementFee DisputePersonal Injury ActionQuantum MeruitProfessional ConductNew York LawSettlement NegotiationsStructured Settlement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 10, 2004

Claim of Mickens v. New York City Transit Authority

The claimant suffered a work-related injury in 1993 and subsequently filed a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A stipulation agreement between the claimant and employer, which adjusted weekly awards and set future payments, was approved by a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge. The claimant appealed this decision to the Workers’ Compensation Board, asserting the stipulation's invalidity, inadequate legal representation, and excessive counsel fees. The Board upheld the WCLJ's decision and denied the claimant's request for reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decisions, finding the stipulation binding and the counsel fee award within the Board's discretion, and no abuse of discretion in denying reconsideration.

Stipulation AgreementCounsel FeesBoard ReviewAppellate ReviewPsychological ImpairmentsWork-related InjuryDecision AffirmedDiscretionary PowersLegal RepresentationBenefit Adjustment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bynum v. Maplebear Inc.

Plaintiff Melody Bynum initiated an action against Instacart, alleging misclassification as an independent contractor and unpaid overtime wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Instacart moved to compel arbitration based on an independent contractor agreement. The court found the arbitration agreement valid, despite being a contract of adhesion, as Bynum had a reasonable opportunity to review and sign it. The court, however, severed the unconscionable venue, fee-splitting, and fee-shifting clauses of the agreement based on the parties' stipulation. It affirmed that FLSA claims are arbitrable and that the dispute falls within the broad scope of the arbitration agreement, ultimately granting Instacart's motion to compel arbitration and staying the case.

ArbitrationEmployment ContractIndependent ContractorFLSANYLLWage ClaimsOvertime WagesUnconscionabilitySeverability ClauseFederal Arbitration Act
References
41
Case No. 01cv5694
Regular Panel Decision

Mazzei v. Money Store

Plaintiff Joseph Mazzei initiated a class action against The Money Store and related entities, alleging breach of contract for improperly charged mortgage late fees and attorney fee-splitting. The case involved two certified classes: a "Post Acceleration Late Fee Class" and a "Fee Split Class," with a jury finding for Mazzei and the Late Fee Class on late fees but for defendants on the fee-splitting claim. The plaintiff's motion for a new trial regarding the fee-splitting claim was denied, as the court found the jury's verdict was not seriously erroneous. The defendants successfully moved to decertify the Late Fee Class and were granted judgment as a matter of law, because the plaintiff failed to prove class-wide contractual privity with all class members, especially those whose loans were only serviced by the defendants. Consequently, the jury's $54 million damages award for the Late Fee Class could not be upheld, leading to the class's decertification.

Class ActionBreach of ContractMortgage LoanLate FeesLoan AccelerationFee SplittingLoan ServicingPost-Trial MotionsClass DecertificationJudgment as a Matter of Law
References
58
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 00118 [190 AD3d 489]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 12, 2021

Henry v. Split Rock Rehabilitation & Health Care Ctr., LLC

Plaintiff Ian Henry, an HVAC technician, was injured on January 24, 2014, at Split Rock Rehabilitation and Health Care Center, LLC, when a circuit breaker allegedly exploded. He was inspecting a newly installed rooftop air conditioning unit and was escorted to an electrical room by a Split Rock employee. Split Rock moved for summary judgment, arguing Henry's failure to turn off the power caused the incident, but Henry testified the power was already off. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion, finding unresolved factual issues regarding the accident's cause and whether the risks were readily observable. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment, concluding that material issues of fact remained for trial.

Summary JudgmentHVAC TechnicianWorkplace AccidentCircuit Breaker ExplosionMaterial Issues of FactObservable RisksNegligenceThird-Party DefendantAppellate ReviewPremises Liability
References
7
Case No. ADJ590476 (MON 0347305) ADJ1613386 (MON 0347306)
Regular
Mar 24, 2014

JOSE MANUEL MIJES vs. TARO'S TAPAS, LLC, GRANITE STATE INSURANCE COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board dismissed a Petition for Reconsideration filed by former attorney Dean Donin. Donin sought reconsideration of a compromise and release order that held attorney's fees in trust pending a fee-split agreement, arguing he wasn't served and no fees were awarded to him. The Board found Donin was not aggrieved by the order as it preserved his potential interest in the fees. Furthermore, the Board strongly admonished Donin for filing the petition without verifying the order's content or attempting informal resolution, noting this practice and potential lack of lien filing wastes resources and may lead to sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleaseOrder Approving Compromise and Releaseattorney's feesfee-split agreementadministrative law judgeaggrievedlien claimantEAMS
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 4,779 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