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

People v. Louis

This judicial opinion addresses a claim by Consultants for Criminal Justice Alternatives (CCJA) for $1,260 in compensation, under County Law § 722-c, for 28 hours of prepleading and presentence 'other than counsel services' provided to an un-named criminal defendant. Judge Budd G. Goodman approved 27 hours of service but reduced the hourly rate from $45 to $30, awarding $810. The court denied compensation for clerical activities. The decision extensively discussed criteria for 'reasonable compensation' based on service provider qualifications and service nature, and affirmed the existence of 'extraordinary circumstances' allowing compensation above the $300 statutory limit.

Compensation ClaimCounty Law § 722-cOther Than Counsel ServicesPrepleading ReportPresentence ReportExtraordinary CircumstancesHourly Rate DeterminationParaprofessional ServicesCriminal DefenseSocial Work Standards
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Case No. 2014-1124 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 21, 2017

Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v. Nationwide Ins.

The Appellate Term, Second Department, affirmed an order of the Civil Court of the City of New York, Kings County, which had granted summary judgment to Nationwide Ins. The case involved Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C.'s action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits. Nationwide Ins. successfully argued that it properly reimbursed the plaintiff for acupuncture services using the workers' compensation fee schedule applicable to chiropractors providing similar services. The appellate court found sufficient proof of timely mailing of claim denials and full payment according to the fee schedule. A new contention raised by the plaintiff for the first time on appeal was not considered by the court.

no-fault insuranceacupuncture servicesworkers' compensation fee schedulesummary judgmentappellate reviewclaim denialtimely mailingreimbursementmedical servicesfirst-party benefits
References
4
Case No. 2017-635 K C
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 02, 2019

Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v. GEICO Ins. Co.

In this case, Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., acting as assignee, sought to recover no-fault benefits from GEICO Ins. Co. The Civil Court initially denied GEICO's cross-motion for summary judgment to dismiss claims concerning unpaid benefits. On appeal, the Appellate Term, Second Department, reversed the lower court's decision. The Appellate Term found that GEICO had timely denied the claims and correctly applied the workers' compensation fee schedule for the services in question. Consequently, GEICO's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing the plaintiff's claims.

No-Fault BenefitsSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation Fee ScheduleAppellate ReviewInsurance ClaimsTimely DenialAssigned ClaimsMedical Provider ReimbursementCivil CourtAppellate Term Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Abraham Natural Foods Corp. v. Mount Vernon Fire Insurance

Plaintiff Abraham Natural Foods Corp. initiated an action seeking a declaration that Mount Vernon Fire Insurance Company was obligated to indemnify and defend it in a wrongful death suit. The case was removed to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Plaintiff later amended its complaint to add several non-diverse defendants, including Modern Insurance Agency and Ok Z. Kim. Defendants moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing that the joinder of non-diverse parties destroyed diversity. Plaintiff cross-moved to remand the case to state court. The Court denied the motion to dismiss and granted the motion to remand, finding that the joinder of Modern was permissible under Rule 20 and legitimate, thus requiring remand under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(e).

Diversity JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionRemand to State CourtMotion to DismissJoinder of PartiesPermissive JoinderFederal Rules of Civil Procedure28 U.S.C. § 1447(e)Insurance LitigationBroker Malpractice
References
18
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04372 [219 AD3d 819]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2023

Iannaccone v. United Natural Foods, Inc.

The plaintiff, Louis Iannaccone, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Rockland County, which had granted summary judgment dismissing his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. Iannaccone alleged personal injuries suffered in October 2015 while installing camera systems for United Natural Foods, Inc., when an extension ladder he was on, resting on landscaping rocks, shifted and caused him to fall. The Supreme Court initially granted motions by the defendant and third-party defendants (Protection One Alarm Monitoring, Inc., and Protection One Systems, Inc.) to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) cause of action. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the defendant and third-party defendants failed to establish, prima facie, that Iannaccone's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Appellate Division noted Iannaccone's testimony about the unsafe alternative placement of the ladder and the lack of evidence that available safety ties, not at the job site, would have prevented the fall. Consequently, the motions for summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim were denied.

Personal InjuryLadder SafetyLabor Law 240(1)Summary Judgment ReversalAppellate ReviewProximate CauseRecalcitrant WorkerSafety DevicesConstruction AccidentWorkplace Injury
References
16
Case No. 2014-769 Q C
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 18, 2016

Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C. v. American Tr. Ins. Co.

The plaintiff, Natural Therapy Acupuncture, P.C., acting as an assignee of Christopher Icheke, initiated an action to recover assigned first-party no-fault benefits from American Transit Ins. Co. The plaintiff moved for summary judgment, while the defendant cross-moved for summary judgment, asserting that all claims had been timely and properly paid in accordance with the workers' compensation fee schedule. The Civil Court denied the plaintiff's motion and granted the defendant's cross-motion, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Term affirmed the Civil Court's order, concluding that the defendant had successfully demonstrated full payment under the workers' compensation fee schedule, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact.

No-fault benefitsSummary judgmentWorkers' compensation fee scheduleAppellate reviewInsurance claimsAssignee rightsCivil Court decisionTimely paymentMedical servicesAcupuncture services
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Lindner

This case involves an appeal concerning judgments from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which adjudged certain defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court for violating the Taylor Law and imposed fines. The judgment dated April 8, 1980, finding criminal contempt, was affirmed. However, the judgment dated July 14, 1980, which imposed additional fines, was modified. Specifically, provisions adjudging Transportation Workers Union of America, AFL-CIO, and Amalgamated Transit Union, AFL-CIO, guilty of criminal contempt and fining them were deleted. The court determined that the international unions had complied with the prior order by instructing locals to return to work, and their actions did not constitute willful defiance.

Criminal ContemptTaylor LawLabor DisputeUnion LiabilityAppellate ReviewJudiciary LawPublic WelfareCollective BargainingStrike SanctionsInjunction
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Salvamoser v. Pratt Institute

The plaintiff appealed an order granting summary judgment to the defendants, Pratt Institute and 205 Ashland Associates, for personal injuries resulting from a criminal assault. The plaintiff was robbed on a public street near her residence, owned by 205 Ashland Associates and leased by Pratt Institute, then forced into her apartment and to a bank. She alleged negligence by the defendants for a defective or open front door, contending they failed to provide adequate security. The Supreme Court found the defendants' actions were not a substantial cause of the injury, as the criminal act originated off-premises and the plaintiff would have been compelled into her apartment regardless of the door's security. The appellate court affirmed the summary judgment dismissal, concluding that the causal connection between any negligence and the criminal act was too attenuated as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryCriminal AssaultNegligencePremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentCausationProximate CauseLandlord LiabilityAppellate ReviewSecurity Measures
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,190 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