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

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stankowski v. Kim

Plaintiff's decedent, Janusz Stankowski, was killed after being struck by a truck backing into Post & Taback's loading dock at the New York City Terminal Market. Plaintiff alleged negligence against Post & Taback for maintaining a dangerous condition (debris) and failing to control traffic, claiming the debris caused Stankowski to slip and be struck again. The IAS court denied Post & Taback's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed, finding no admissible evidence of Stankowski slipping on debris and no duty for Post & Taback to maintain the area where the accident occurred or control traffic. The dissent argued that issues of fact remained regarding the debris contributing to the accident and Post & Taback's duty to clear the area close to its dock.

Summary JudgmentNegligencePremises LiabilityWrongful DeathAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulesHearsay EvidenceTraffic ControlLoading Dock AccidentDuty of Care
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volmar Distributors, Inc. v. New York Post Co., Inc.

Plaintiffs Volmar Distributors, Inc., Interboro Distributors, Inc. d/b/a Media Masters Distributors, and REZ Associates sued multiple defendants including The New York Post Co., Inc., Maxwell Newspapers, Inc., El Diario Associates, Pelham News Co., Inc., American Periodical Distributors, Inc., Vincent Orlando, The Newspaper and Mail Deliverer’s Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU), and Douglas La Chance. The action alleges violations of the Sherman Antitrust Act, RICO, the New York State Donnelly Act, and state common laws, stemming from the termination of plaintiffs as newspaper distributors. The plaintiffs claim a conspiracy between Orlando (owner of Pelham and American) and La Chance (former NMDU president) to use La Chance's union influence to transfer distribution routes to Orlando's companies. Two related criminal indictments are pending: People v. La Chance and People v. NMDU. The court considered defendants' motion to stay civil discovery pending the resolution of these criminal matters. The court granted a complete stay of discovery for all defendants until the criminal proceedings against La Chance and Orlando are resolved, citing the protection of Fifth Amendment rights and the promotion of judicial efficiency by avoiding duplicative discovery.

AntitrustRICORacketeeringConspiracyCivil DiscoveryCriminal ProceedingsStay of ProceedingsFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationLabor Union
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Post

The case involves defendants Constance G. Post and Wayne Charles, convicted of mail fraud, honest services fraud, and conspiracy, who challenged their convictions post-trial following the Supreme Court's Skilling decision. Post, a Mount Vernon city official, engaged in undisclosed self-dealing to benefit Charles through various schemes involving city contracts and HUD funds. The court found that erroneous jury instructions on honest services fraud, which did not limit it to bribes or kickbacks, constituted a Skilling error. Given the intertwined presentation of valid pecuniary fraud and invalid honest services fraud theories, the court could not guarantee the jury's verdict was solely based on a permissible theory. Consequently, the motion to dismiss the mail fraud and conspiracy counts is granted, while Charles's false statements conviction remains due to a lack of prejudicial spillover.

Mail fraudHonest services fraudConspiracyPublic corruptionUndisclosed self-dealingSkilling v. United StatesJury instructionsHarmless error reviewFederal criminal lawPost-conviction motion
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kotlyarsky v. New York Post

Plaintiffs Boris and Alla Kotlyarsky and Reliable Rehabilitation Center, Inc. sued defendants New York Post, NYP Holdings, Inc., Susan Edelman, and Devlin Barrett for libel. The action stemmed from a December 11, 2000 article in the New York Post that alleged Boris Kotlyarsky was under federal indictment and described Reliable Rehabilitation Center as a 'medical mill.' Plaintiffs claimed they were promised a retraction, which was later withdrawn, leading them to delay filing their lawsuit until August 12, 2002. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the one-year statute of limitations for libel had expired on December 12, 2001. Plaintiffs invoked equitable estoppel, equitable tolling, and promissory estoppel to argue the statute was tolled. The court found that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate due diligence in pursuing the retraction and thus, the doctrines of estoppel or tolling were not applicable. Consequently, the defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the complaint as time-barred.

defamationlibelstatute of limitationsequitable estoppelequitable tollingpromissory estoppelsummary judgmentdue diligenceretractionNew York Law
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaczor v. City of Buffalo

Walter Kaczor, a retired Buffalo Police Officer, sued the City of Buffalo and its officers for age discrimination under the ADEA and New York State Human Rights Law, alleging he was not reinstated due to his age. A jury found the defendants willfully discriminated against Kaczor. Defendants filed post-trial motions challenging the sufficiency of evidence, jurisdictional issues, and damages computation. The court denied defendants' motions for judgment notwithstanding the verdict on liability and willfulness, finding ample evidence to support the jury's findings, including direct evidence of age discrimination. The court also denied motions to dismiss Kaczor's ADEA and pendent state law claims, confirming jurisdiction despite complex interplays between federal and state filing requirements. Issues related to the excessiveness of damages were referred to a Magistrate for settlement negotiations.

Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA)New York State Human Rights LawPost-Trial MotionsWillful DiscriminationJudgment Notwithstanding the Verdict (JNOV)Procedural RequirementsJurisdictional IssuesElection of RemediesDamagesEmotional Distress
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thompson v. Roland (In Re Roland)

This post-trial decision concerns an adversary proceeding initiated by the plaintiff, Marjorie Thompson, Esq., against her former husband, the debtor, in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy case. The plaintiff sought to declare the debtor's obligation to pay her attorney's fees non-dischargeable under 11 U.S.C. § 523(a)(5) or (a)(15). These fees stemmed from state court litigation where the plaintiff compelled the debtor to cooperate in the sale of a jointly owned property, and from the current bankruptcy proceedings. The court analyzed whether an enforceable right to attorney's fees existed under the parties' separation agreement's indemnification clause. It concluded that the indemnification provisions did not cover the specific breach committed by the debtor, thus failing to establish a contractual right to attorney's fees. As a result, the court ruled there was no "debt" to be deemed non-dischargeable and dismissed the adversary proceeding on its merits.

Bankruptcy LawNon-Dischargeability of DebtAttorney's FeesSeparation AgreementIndemnification ClauseContract InterpretationRooker-Feldman DoctrineStipulation of LawChapter 7Adversary Proceeding
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 27, 2018

Saint-Jean v. Emigrant Mortg. Co.

This case involves a lawsuit by eight Black property owners against Emigrant Mortgage Company and Emigrant Bank, alleging predatory "STAR NINA" loans that targeted minority communities. Plaintiffs claimed these loans were designed to strip home equity by imposing an onerous 18% interest rate upon late payment, a calculated plan given the borrowers' low credit scores and lack of sophistication. A jury found Emigrant liable for violating the Fair Housing Act, Equal Credit Opportunity Act, and New York City Human Rights Law, awarding compensatory damages. Following the verdict, both parties filed post-trial motions. The court granted in part and denied in part both defendants' and plaintiffs' motions, notably finding the Saintils' waiver unenforceable due to public policy and ordering a new trial on damages for all plaintiffs, citing inconsistencies and lack of clarity in the original awards.

Predatory LendingSubprime MortgagesRacial DiscriminationFair Housing ActEqual Credit Opportunity ActNew York City Human Rights LawJury VerdictPost-Trial MotionsDamagesNew Trial
References
46
Case No. ADJ7908284
Regular
Apr 21, 2016

MARIA MURILLO vs. FEDEX SMART POST, PROTECTIVE INSURANCE

This case involves Maria Murillo's workers' compensation claim against FedEx Smart Post. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) dismissed Murillo's petition for reconsideration. The dismissal was based on the petition being untimely filed, as it was submitted more than 25 days after the Administrative Law Judge's decision. The WCAB emphasized that timely *receipt* by the Board, not just mailing, is required to meet jurisdictional filing deadlines. Therefore, the WCAB lacked the authority to consider the petition.

WORKERS' COMPENSATION APPEALS BOARDPETITION FOR RECONSIDERATIONDISMISSEDUNTimelyLABOR CODECALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONSJURISDICTIONALWCJ DECISIONSERVICE BY MAILPROOF OF MAILING
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sabatini v. Corning-Painted Post Area School District

The case is a Decision and Order regarding attorney's fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Plaintiffs, Aaron Sabatini and his mother Sharon Sabatini, successfully sought attorney's fees after securing a preliminary injunction for Aaron's placement at Mitchell College and reaching a settlement with the Corning-Painted Post Area School District. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer in the Western District of New York, addressed disputes over hourly rates, defining the relevant "community," and determining when plaintiffs became "prevailing parties." It found the requested hourly rates reasonable, especially given the specialized nature of special education law and the attorneys' expertise. While applying a 15% reduction for duplicative efforts and vague entries, the court awarded plaintiffs $49,730.65 in attorney's fees and costs.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)Attorney's FeesPrevailing PartyLodestar MethodReasonable Hourly RatesWestern District of New YorkSpecial Education LawSettlement AgreementImpartial Hearing Officer (IHO)Preliminary Injunction
References
40
Showing 1-10 of 861 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