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

Lawyer v. Rotterdam Ventures, Inc.

Plaintiff Robert E. Lawyer, an employee, suffered serious personal injuries after falling from a ladder while installing a sign on the defendant's building. He and his wife alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) for the plaintiffs and denied the defendant's cross-motion to dismiss. On appeal, the court affirmed the finding of liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), emphasizing the nondelegable duty of owners under the statute. However, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's decision regarding Labor Law §§ 200 (1) and 241 (6), dismissing these causes of action due to a lack of specific regulation violations for § 241 (6) and no demonstration of supervisory control or notice for § 200 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction Site SafetyOwner LiabilityNondelegable DutyAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentPartial Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSafe Workplace
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 1984

Patricia L. v. Steven L.

This case involves an appeal challenging the Family Court's decision to compel a mother, Patricia L., to proceed pro se in a custody hearing after her lawyer failed to appear. The dispute originated from a divorce action between Patricia L. and Steven L., where both sought custody of their children. Despite the mother's protests and information that her lawyer was en route, the court proceeded with the hearing, leading to the mother's inability to effectively present her case. The Family Court subsequently awarded temporary and then permanent custody to the father, Steven L. The appellate court found that the mother was deprived of her fundamental right to counsel, which compromised her ability to ensure due process and protect the best interests of the children. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's order and remitted the matter for a new hearing.

Right to counselCustody hearingPro se representationAdjournment denialParental rightsFamily Court procedureAppellate reviewAbuse of discretionDue processEffective assistance of counsel
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Lee

The case involves a motion to suppress a confession made by 17-year-old Steven Lee, who was arrested for multiple robberies. Prior to his interrogation, Lee's parents explicitly informed detectives they would secure a lawyer for him. Despite this, and after initial Miranda warnings, detectives proceeded with questioning Lee at the precinct while he was handcuffed. The court found that the parents' unequivocal statement constituted an effective invocation of Lee's right to counsel, requiring the police to either reiterate his rights in light of the parents' intent or wait a reasonable time for a lawyer. The court also expressed reasonable doubt regarding the voluntariness and knowing waiver of Lee's Miranda rights, particularly given his age, lack of prior arrests, handcuffing, and threats made by detectives. Consequently, the motion to suppress Lee's confession for both indictments was granted.

Confession suppressionMiranda rightsParental invocation of counselJuvenile rightsCustodial interrogationVoluntariness of confessionPolice threatsRight to counsel waiver17-year-old defendantIntervening events
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M.K.B. v. Eggleston

This Memorandum Order addresses a motion filed by defendants Verna Eggleston, Doar, and Novello, seeking to disqualify plaintiffs’ counsel, paralegal assistants, interns, and former attorney Reena Ganju from testifying in the action. The defendants argued that these individuals were essential fact witnesses for the plaintiffs’ 'Monell' claim, invoking the advocate-witness rule. The Court, presided over by District Judge RAKOFF, denied the motion in its entirety. The decision clarified that the advocate-witness rule, as embodied in New York Code of Professional Responsibility Disciplinary Rule 5-102, does not apply to non-lawyers or to lawyers not currently appearing for any party in the case. The Court also noted that Ms. Ganju's testimony and other documentary evidence would render counsel's testimony cumulative and not essential for the plaintiffs' case, though it admonished plaintiffs' counsel for an 'inappropriate' confusion of roles.

Advocate-Witness RuleDisqualification MotionLegal EthicsProfessional ResponsibilityMonell ClaimFederal CourtCounsel TestimonyParalegal TestimonyIntern TestimonyPrior Representation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lerner v. Fleet Bank, N.A.

Plaintiffs, investors Lerner and Bayroff, accused Fleet Bank, Sterling National Bank, and Republic National Bank of Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) violations. They alleged the banks facilitated a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme orchestrated by attorney David Schick by failing to report his insufficient funds checks from attorney escrow accounts, in violation of New York regulations. Plaintiffs argued that prompt reporting would have exposed the scheme earlier, preventing their losses. The District Court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the RICO claims, ruling that the plaintiffs lacked standing. The court reasoned that the relevant New York banking and attorney disciplinary regulations were designed to protect an attorney's clients in a lawyer-client relationship, not investors engaged in financial transactions with a lawyer acting in a business capacity. As a result, the amended complaints were dismissed entirely, with the court declining supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims.

RICO ActPonzi SchemeBank LiabilityAttorney MisconductEscrow Account FraudStanding DoctrineProximate CauseMail FraudWire FraudRule 12(b)(1) Dismissal
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Horn v. New York Times

The New York Court of Appeals addresses whether the narrow exception to the at-will employment doctrine, established in Wieder v Skala, applies to a physician employed by a nonmedical entity like the New York Times. Dr. Sheila E. Horn, formerly Associate Medical Director, alleged wrongful termination for refusing to disclose confidential employee medical records without consent and for not misinforming employees about workers' compensation eligibility, citing professional ethical standards. While lower courts extended the Wieder exception, which applied to lawyers in a common professional enterprise, the Court of Appeals reversed. The court concluded that Horn's role involved corporate management responsibilities related to workers' compensation and did not constitute the 'very core' of her employment in the same way as a lawyer's professional services to a law firm's clients. Therefore, the ethical rules cited did not impose a mutual obligation between Horn and the Times to practice law in compliance with specific professional codes, as required for the Wieder exception.

At-will employmentBreach of contractPhysician-patient privilegeProfessional ethicsCorporate employmentRetaliatory dischargeWieder v Skala exceptionEmployment lawConfidentialityMedical director
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 1999

Lawyer v. Hoffman

A construction laborer (plaintiff), employed by a third-party defendant, was injured while carrying a manhole cover chain at a construction site on property owned by the defendant. The plaintiff slipped and fell on packed snow and ice. The plaintiff sued the defendant, alleging a violation of Labor Law § 241 (6) based on alleged failures to comply with 12 NYCRR 23-1.5, 23-1.7 (d), and 23-1.33 (d). The defendant then sought common-law indemnification from the third-party defendant. The Supreme Court granted the third-party defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The appellate court affirmed, finding that the regulations cited by the plaintiff were either not specific enough to support a Labor Law § 241 (6) claim or were inapplicable to the facts of the case, specifically ruling that 12 NYCRR 23-1.33 applies to passersby, not workers, and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) does not apply to temporary gravel roadbeds.

Labor Law § 241 (6)Summary JudgmentConstruction Site InjurySlipping HazardSnow and IceNYCRR RegulationsEmployer LiabilityCommon-Law IndemnificationAppellate DivisionWorker Safety
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Terranova v. Lehr Construction Co.

The New York State Trial Lawyers Association's motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae on an appeal was granted, and their proposed brief was accepted as filed.

References
0
Case No. ADJ3634893
Regular
Mar 09, 2008

CHANNEL GREEN vs. TIME WARNER CABLE, ACE/USA c/o ESIS, INC.

Here's a summary for a lawyer: This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board order dismisses a petition for removal filed by the applicant. The dismissal is based on the pending settlement of the case. No further action will be taken on the petition, and the file will be returned for submission of the settlement to the Workers' Compensation Administrative Law Judge.

Petition for RemovalSettlement PendingWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardDismissalWCJDistrict OfficeTime Warner CableACE/USAESISInc.
References
0
Case No. ADJ4436706 (SAC 0168766)
Regular
Jun 04, 2015

BARBARA NEWHOUSE vs. E GONZALEZ MD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

Here's a summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) issued an order dismissing a Petition for Reconsideration filed by petitioner Barbara Newhouse. This dismissal is a direct result of the petitioner's voluntary withdrawal of the petition. The original decision that was subject to reconsideration was issued on February 26, 2015. The Board acted upon the withdrawal to formally close this matter.

Petition for ReconsiderationDismissedWithdrawnBarbara NewhouseEgonzalez MDState Compensation Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ4436706SAC 0168766
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 192 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