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. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capozzi v. Whitman

This case involves an Article 78 application for a writ of prohibition against a Justice of the Municipal Court. The petitioner, acting as a landlord, sought to prevent the Municipal Court from vacating a final order and warrant of eviction previously issued in a summary proceeding. The tenant had moved to set aside the final order, citing fraud or mistake. The court ruled that it possesses inherent power to vacate its own judgments or final orders in the interest of justice. Furthermore, the petitioner was found to have an adequate remedy through appeal. Consequently, the cross-motion was granted, and the proceeding for a writ of prohibition was dismissed.

Article 78Writ of ProhibitionSummary ProceedingVacating Final OrderInherent Court PowerAppellate RemedyLandlord-Tenant DisputeFraudNewly Discovered EvidenceMunicipal Court
References
5
Case No. ADJ1857578
Regular
Jun 23, 2009

MIRNA LICEA vs. MINSON CORPORATION, CALIFORNIA INSURANCE GUARANTEE ASSOCIATION for PHICO INSURANCE COMPANY in liquidation

This case involves a lien claim by Missirian Orthopedic Medical Group, assigned to KM Financial Services, for medical treatment provided to Mirna Licea. The California Insurance Guarantee Association (CIGA), representing the insolvent insurer Phico Insurance Company, denied the lien based on Insurance Code § 1063.1(c)(9), which excludes claims by assignees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, affirming that the statute clearly prohibits payment to assignees, including medical providers who have assigned their accounts receivable. The Board relied on *Baxter Healthcare Corp. v. CIGA* for the principle that assigned claims are not "covered claims" under the Guarantee Act.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCalifornia Insurance Guarantee AssociationCIGAPhico Insurance Companyliquidationinsolvent insurerlien claimantassigneecovered claimInsurance Code 1063.1(c)(9)
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Atkinson v. City of New York

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a petitioner against the City of New York. The petitioner sought to prevent the City from imposing a Workers’ Compensation lien on an award received through the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the petition and prohibited the lien. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court reiterating that Workers’ Compensation liens are applicable only against recoveries from third-party tortfeasors responsible for injuries, as per Matter of Shutter v Philips Display Components Co. The court determined that the vaccine injury award did not constitute such a recovery, thus precluding the lien. The case Matter of Ryan v General Elec. Co. was distinguished as involving an award against a tortfeasor under the Military Claims Act.

Workers' Compensation LienNational Vaccine Injury Compensation ProgramCPLR Article 78Third-Party TortfeasorAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationLien ProhibitionVaccine Injury AwardMilitary Claims ActNew York Appellate Courts
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Herring

County Court granted Joseph F. Cawley enhanced assigned counsel fees under "extraordinary circumstances" according to County Law § 722-b, exceeding statutory limits. The County of Broome appealed, arguing a question of statutory construction regarding whether "foregoing limits" in § 722-b applied to hourly rates or only total amounts. The appellate court found this argument unpersuasive, viewing it as an attempt to appeal a discretionary award. Citing precedent, including Matter of Werfel v Agresta and Matter of Director of Assigned Counsel Plan of City of N. Y. (Bodek), the court affirmed that trial court orders on enhanced fees are administrative and not subject to appellate judicial review on the merits. Consequently, the appeal brought by the County of Broome was dismissed with costs.

Assigned Counsel FeesExtraordinary CircumstancesStatutory InterpretationAppellate JurisdictionJudicial DiscretionCounty Law 722-bAdministrative ReviewJusticiable ControversyHourly RatesFee Schedules
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Human Resources Administration v. Carey

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 petition in the nature of a writ of prohibition. The petitioner, the City Human Resources Administration (HRA), sought to vacate a Supreme Court order regarding defendant Delgado, who was charged with arson. Delgado was found by two psychiatrists to be an incapacitated person unable to stand trial due to a severe hearing defect. The lower court, misinterpreting CPL article 730, ruled that Delgado's physical incapacity did not fall under the statute and ordered his placement with HRA and the Department of Social Services. The appellate court granted the writ of prohibition, vacating the lower court's order for exceeding its jurisdiction. The court declared Delgado incompetent to stand trial *nunc pro tunc* and committed him to the custody of the New York State Commissioner of Mental Health, clarifying that CPL 730.10 broadly applies to any mental defect causing incapacity, regardless of its source. The decision emphasized that the statute does not distinguish between different sources of disability once a finding of incapacity is made.

Incompetency to Stand TrialWrit of ProhibitionMental IncapacityCriminal Procedure LawJurisdiction DisputeArson Third DegreeDue ProcessCommitment OrderAppellate ReviewPhysical Impairment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1978

M. H. v. J. H.

This case addresses a motion by the Brewery Workers Pension Fund to vacate a payroll deduction order issued by the Family Court. The order required the Pension Fund to deduct $35 per week from a retired respondent's pension for child support, benefiting the petitioner. The Pension Fund contended that the deduction violated its plan's anti-alienation provision, was not authorized by section 49-b of the Personal Property Law, and was preempted by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). The court denied the Pension Fund's application, ruling that New York State law permits such deductions for child support despite pension plan restrictions and that ERISA's anti-assignment provisions do not prohibit court-ordered garnishments for support obligations, distinguishing them from voluntary assignments.

Child SupportPension GarnishmentERISA PreemptionPayroll Deduction OrderFamily LawSupport EnforcementAnti-Alienation ClausesState Law vs. Federal LawVoluntary vs. Involuntary TransferNew York Judiciary
References
19
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07672 [132 AD3d 887]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2015

Matter of Village of Garden City v. Local 1588, Professional Firefighters Assn.

The Village of Garden City appealed an order denying its petition to permanently stay arbitration and granting the Professional Firefighters Association's motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after the Village decided to lay off six bargaining unit members and assign their work to nonbargaining unit volunteers, leading the Association to file a grievance and request arbitration. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, found that the parties' collective bargaining agreement permitted arbitration of these issues and that it was not against public policy. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that there was no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitrating the grievance. The Court also noted that previous decisions had implicitly acknowledged the arbitrability of assigning bargaining unit work to volunteers, and the grievances were reasonably related to the CBA.

Arbitration DisputeCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic Sector EmploymentLayoff GrievanceAssignment of WorkAppellate DivisionNassau CountyStay of ArbitrationCompel ArbitrationManagement Rights
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sheriff's Silver Star Ass'n of Oswego County, Inc. v. County of Oswego

Female correction officers and the Sheriffs Silver Star Association sued Oswego County, Charles Nellis, and Reuel Todd under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and New York Executive Law § 296, challenging the sex-segregation policy at the Oswego County Correctional Facility. The plaintiffs alleged that the policy, which prohibited female COs from male housing units and vice-versa, violated the Equal Protection Clause. The defendants justified the policy by an alleged mandate from New York law, specifically N.Y. County Law § 652(2). The court found that the defendants' interpretation of the state law was errant, as the law only requires the presence of same-gender COs, not a prohibition on cross-gender assignments. The court disregarded the county's post hoc justifications of inmate privacy and prevention of sexual harassment. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on municipal liability, declared the sex-segregation policy unconstitutional, and dismissed the official-capacity claims against Nellis and Todd, denying the county's cross-motion.

Sex DiscriminationEqual ProtectionSection 1983Municipal LiabilityCorrectional FacilityGender SegregationSummary JudgmentPublic EmploymentOfficial CapacityState Law Misinterpretation
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 968 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