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

Singh v. Ross

The plaintiffs appealed an order from Queens County, dated September 26, 2003, which denied their motion for nunc pro tunc judicial approval of a settlement under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). This law requires either carrier consent or judicial approval within three months of a settlement to avoid forfeiture of future workers' compensation benefits. While judicial approval can be sought beyond the three-month period if the settlement is reasonable, the delay is not due to the party's fault, and the carrier is not prejudiced, the Supreme Court denied the motion. The court found the over one-year delay in seeking approval was attributable to the plaintiffs' own fault or neglect. The appellate court affirmed this decision.

Workers' CompensationJudicial ApprovalSettlementNunc Pro TuncDelay in ApplicationCourt DiscretionAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryThird-Party ActionForfeiture of Benefits
References
6
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01077
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 13, 2019

Matter of Simon

This disciplinary proceeding concerns attorney Alan Michael Simon, who was previously removed from his judicial position by the New York Court of Appeals for extensive judicial misconduct. The misconduct included bullying, ethnic smearing, poor temperament, engaging in a physical altercation, repeatedly threatening officials with contempt without cause, and improperly interfering in a political election. The Grievance Committee for the Ninth Judicial District brought three charges of professional misconduct against Simon, alleging conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice, conduct adversely reflecting on his fitness as a lawyer, and conduct involving dishonesty, deceit, fraud, and misrepresentation. The court found the charges sustained under the doctrine of collateral estoppel, given the prior findings by the Court of Appeals. Despite Simon's arguments for mitigation, including his good faith and election as mayor, the court deemed his actions "truly egregious" and noted his continued lack of insight. Consequently, Alan Michael Simon was disbarred, effective immediately.

Attorney DisciplineJudicial MisconductDisbarmentProfessional MisconductCollateral EstoppelGrievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionRules of Professional ConductEthical ViolationsAttorney and Counselor-at-Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 1997

Harosh v. Diaz

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated August 25, 1997, which denied his motion to renew a prior motion for judicial approval of a compromise and settlement. The plaintiff was injured in 1993 when struck by the defendants' vehicle and settled his action against them for $10,000 in 1994. He subsequently filed a Workers' Compensation claim and, in February 1996, moved for approval of the settlement under Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (5), which was initially denied without prejudice. His renewed motion in May 1997 was denied as untimely, a decision the appellate court affirmed. The court emphasized that judicial approval beyond the statutory three-month period requires demonstrating the settlement's reasonableness, lack of petitioner's fault for the delay, and no prejudice to the carrier, which the plaintiff failed to do.

Appellate DecisionWorkers' Compensation LawSettlement ApprovalTimelinessPersonal InjuryAutomobile AccidentInsurance CarrierJudicial ReviewRenew MotionQueens County
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2008

Riches v. New York City Council

This case concerns an appeal affirming the dismissal of a summary judicial inquiry requested by eight citizens against the New York City Council and Speaker Quinn. The petitioners sought an inquiry into the Council's practice of allocating funds to "fictitious organizations" or "holding codes" during its budgeting process, alleging violations of the New York City Charter. The motion court, and subsequently the appellate court, determined that the Supreme Court justice appropriately exercised discretion in denying the inquiry. The decision was based on reasons including extensive public disclosure of the practice, ongoing investigations by governmental agencies, and the determination that the alleged transgression was not the type of venal act the Charter provision was designed to address. The court affirmed that granting such an inquiry is a matter of sound judicial discretion.

Summary judicial inquiryNew York City Charter Section 1109City Council budgetingFictitious organizationsGovernmental misconductAbuse of discretionAppellate reviewJudicial discretionPublic interestOngoing investigations
References
17
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04223 [208 AD3d 77]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2022

Matter of Faillace

This case concerns reciprocal discipline against attorney Michael Faillace, who was admitted to practice law in the First Judicial Department in 1984. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought a two-year suspension for Faillace, based on discipline imposed by the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York. Faillace was charged with serious professional misconduct, including underpaying clients' monies in violation of court orders, making misrepresentations during an investigation, and refusing to honor clients' decisions to settle claims. These actions violated several Rules of Professional Conduct. Faillace admitted to all charges and consented to a two-year suspension, which was implemented by the Southern District Court in November 2021. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the Committee's motion, imposing a two-year reciprocal suspension effective August 1, 2022, emphasizing the significant weight given to sanctions imposed by the initial jurisdiction and the consistency with prior disciplinary actions for similar misconduct.

Attorney misconductProfessional ethics violationLawyer suspensionReciprocal disciplineClient funds misappropriationMisrepresentation to tribunalFailure to abide by client settlement decisionAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionSouthern District of New York
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Continental Insurance

Petitioner, injured in a May 1990 work-related automobile accident, was awarded workers' compensation benefits. Respondent, the compensation carrier, asserted a lien claim and required written consent for any third-party settlement. In July 1993, petitioner settled a third-party action for $60,000 without obtaining respondent's consent. Consequently, respondent suspended benefits, and the Workers' Compensation Board approved the termination of awards in May 1995. Nine years later, in November 2002, petitioner sought judicial approval of the settlement nunc pro tunc, which the Supreme Court granted. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the inordinate nine-year delay in seeking judicial approval was inexcusable, despite petitioner's prior knowledge of the consent requirement and the carrier's consistent assertion of its rights.

Workers CompensationJudicial ApprovalNunc Pro TuncPersonal Injury SettlementThird-Party ActionCarrier ConsentDelayPrejudiceStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 13, 1988

Anzalone v. Traveler's Insurance

The petitioner appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which denied judicial approval for the compromise and settlement of a personal injury action under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (5). The appellate court reversed the lower court's decision, granting the petition and approving the compromise settlement. The court found that the Supreme Court had improvidently exercised its discretion in denying the application. Key factors included the defendants' limited insurance coverage of $10,000/$20,000 and the difficulty the petitioner would face in proving

Workers' CompensationPersonal Injury SettlementJudicial ApprovalCompromise SettlementInsurance Coverage LimitsSerious Injury ThresholdAppellate ReviewDiscretion AbuseLien RightsDelay Excusable
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

President & Directors of the Manhattan Co. v. Janowitz

Julius Janowitz created an inter vivos trust in 1933, subsequently modified four times. Following his death in 1937, the trustee initiated an action for judicial settlement of accounts, while his widow, Emma S. Janowitz, challenged the will and trust validity based on her rights under the Decedent Estate Law. The court addressed whether later trust amendments could be incorporated by reference into the will and if the trust was illusory. It affirmed the validity of the will's third paragraph, incorporating the initial trust and the first three amendments but excluding the fourth. Although the trust was found to be illusory against the widow's rights due to donor control, the court ultimately upheld the trust's overall validity, nullifying only the third amendment's $5,000 annual income limitation for the widow to safeguard her interests. An interlocutory decree was issued.

Inter Vivos TrustWill ContestDecedent Estate LawRight of ElectionIllusory TrustIncorporation by ReferenceTrust AmendmentWidow's RightsEstate PlanningTestamentary Disposition
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Judicial Dissolution of Good Co. General Store Cooperative

Petitioners Diane Mohney and Laura Ferris sought judicial dissolution of Good Company General Store Cooperative under Business Corporation Law § 1104-a, or alternatively, an accounting and judgment for their capital accounts. The court denied the petition for dissolution, finding petitioners lacked standing as their membership shares were automatically transferred upon termination of employment according to the cooperative's by-laws and Cooperative Corporations Law. However, the court granted the petitioners' alternative request, ordering Good Company to account for and pay the value of each petitioner’s capital account within 60 days, in compliance with its By-Laws. All other requests for judgment were denied without prejudice.

Worker CooperativeJudicial DissolutionBusiness Corporation Law § 1104-aCooperative Corporations LawMembership Share RedemptionInternal Capital AccountsBy-Laws DisputeCorporate StandingEmployment TerminationMember Rights
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barbaro v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The court addressed two consolidated CPLR Article 78 proceedings concerning whether petitioners' dismissal from the Department of Sanitation was effective prior to the vesting of their deferred retirement allowances. Petitioners, Waldeck and Barbaro, applied for the allowance, which vests if an employee is not dismissed within 30 days of application. Respondents, the Department of Sanitation and New York City Employees’ Retirement System, contended that petitioners were dismissed before the vesting date. The court found discrepancies in the dismissal documentation, a lack of explanation from a key witness (Commissioner Sexton), and insufficient proof that the dismissal notices were properly served according to Civil Service Law § 76. Consequently, the court concluded that the dismissals were not effective by the critical date, entitling petitioners to their vested retirement allowances.

Deferred Retirement AllowanceAdministrative DismissalCPLR Article 78Vested RightsDue ProcessService of NoticeCivil Service LawPublic EmployeesDepartment of SanitationNew York City Employees’ Retirement System
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,291 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