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. 99 Civ. 3200(DLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Cordius Trust v. KUMMERFELD ASSOCIATES, INC.

The court found Donald D. Kummerfeld, Elizabeth M. Kummerfeld, and Kummerfeld Associates, Inc. in civil contempt for failing to comply with discovery orders and restraining notices. The Kummerfelds repeatedly evaded judgment enforcement by activities such as increasing the mortgage on their Cape Cod property, filing a homestead declaration, and making significant expenditures instead of satisfying the judgment. The court rejected arguments of ambiguous notices and upheld the validity of the restraining orders based on due process considerations. As sanctions, the Kummerfelds were ordered to pay $10,000 for fees and costs, Donald Kummerfeld to complete discovery, and both to provide documentation on their Cape Cod property's value. Failure to comply would result in further remedial and coercive sanctions.

Civil ContemptDiscovery SanctionsPost-Judgment EnforcementRestraining OrdersFraudulent TransferPiercing Corporate VeilNew York C.P.L.R. § 5222Massachusetts Homestead ExemptionAttorneys' FeesMagistrate Judge Order
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bell Aircraft Corp. v. Siegler

The court affirmed both the final and intermediate orders without costs in this matter. The case primarily involved an appeal from an order that had found several defendants guilty of criminal contempt of court. Additionally, the appeal also addressed an order which denied a motion seeking to resettle an order of commitment. Furthermore, a motion to vacate and perpetually stay the orders of commitment was also denied. All presiding judges concurred with the decision.

Criminal ContemptOrder of CommitmentResettlement MotionVacate MotionStay OrdersAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedJudicial Concurrence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2016

MF Global Holdings Ltd. v. Allied World Assurance Co. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves an adversary proceeding in the New York Bankruptcy Court, where Plaintiffs MF Global Holdings, Ltd. and MF Global Assigned Assets LLC are seeking to recover E&O insurance proceeds from Bermuda-based insurers. The Bermuda Insurers had obtained ex parte anti-suit injunctions from a Bermuda court, preventing the Plaintiffs from participating in the New York proceedings. Judge Martin Glenn issued a temporary restraining order, enjoining the Bermuda Insurers from enforcing these injunctions, asserting the New York court's jurisdiction and emphasizing the importance of an adversarial system. The court declined to hold the insurers in contempt but scheduled a preliminary injunction hearing to fully address the complex jurisdictional and arbitrability issues.

Bankruptcy LawAdversary ProceedingTemporary Restraining OrderAnti-suit InjunctionPersonal JurisdictionSubject Matter JurisdictionArbitration AgreementHague ConventionInternational ComityInsurance Coverage
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Oxford Capital Securities, Inc.

The Securities and Exchange Commission initiated an action on February 6, 1992, against Oxford Capital Securities, Inc., Oxford Consolidated Corporation, and several individuals for alleged fraudulent offer and sale of unregistered debt securities. The court issued an order for a temporary restraining order, asset freeze, and accountings. Defendants consented to permanent injunctions but failed to provide complete accountings. The Commission moved to hold defendants in civil contempt. The court found defendants in contempt, ruling that Fifth Amendment privilege was waived by individuals who consented to the judgments and does not apply to corporate entities or their officers acting in a representative capacity. Sanctions are deferred for 45 days, allowing defendants to comply with the order.

Securities fraudCivil contemptFifth Amendment privilegeCorporate recordsAsset freezeAccountingInjunctionCorporate officersWaiver of privilegeFederal securities laws
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 15, 2011

Waller v. City of New York

This special proceeding concerns an application for an extension of a temporary restraining order related to the Occupy Wall Street demonstrations in Zuccotti Park. Petitioners, including Jennifer Waller, sought to prevent eviction, allow re-entry with gear, and recover seized property after participants were removed by the NYPD. The court, presided over by Justice Michael D. Stallman, denied the application. The decision found that Brookfield Properties, Inc., the private owner of Zuccotti Park, had the right to adopt reasonable time, place, and manner restrictions on the use of the park, even assuming First Amendment applicability. The court concluded that the rules were reasonable to maintain a clean, safe, and lawful public space and did not infringe on the movants' First Amendment rights.

Occupy Wall StreetZuccotti ParkFirst Amendment RightsFreedom of SpeechPeaceable AssemblyTemporary Restraining OrderPublic Access PlazaPrivate Property RightsZoning RegulationsProtest Movement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2011

Casas v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

This case concerns an appeal of an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, regarding a conditional preclusion order issued in October 2006. The defendant's answer was deemed stricken due to their failure to comply with discovery requirements within 30 days, making the order self-executing. The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non-compliance or a meritorious defense. The order was modified to prevent the plaintiff from litigating an accident-related disability claim subsequent to September 5, 2008, citing a preclusive Workers’ Compensation Board decision. The Appellate Division panel unanimously concurred with the modified decision, affirming the striking of the defendant's answer while imposing a limitation on the plaintiff's disability claims.

Discovery SanctionsConditional Preclusion OrderWorkers' Compensation BoardAccident-related DisabilitySummary JudgmentDefault JudgmentMeritorious DefenseSelf-Executing OrderAppellate DivisionNew York Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dubinsky v. Joseph Love, Inc.

A motion seeking an order to affirm a prior order and judgment and to vacate a previous determination and order of the court was considered and denied by the judicial panel. The panel included Justices Martin, Townley, Callahan, and Peck.

Motion PracticeOrder AffirmanceJudgment AffirmancePrior DeterminationOrder VacaturJudicial Panel DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. ADJ4522242 (VNO 0452421) ADJ522765 (VNO 0452422)
Regular
May 26, 2011

PAUL ALLGOOD vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted lien claimant's petition for removal to rescind an Administrative Law Judge's order compelling Dr. Baden's appearance at trial. The Board found no good cause was established for Dr. Baden's direct examination and that the order was not a final, appealable decision. Removal was granted to prevent prejudice to the lien claimant, and the order for Dr. Baden's appearance was rescinded. The Board also dismissed the lien claimant's prior petition for reconsideration.

Lien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationPetition for RemovalWCJ OrderDr. Scott BadenGood CauseMedical WitnessDirect ExaminationWritten ReportsBoard Rule 10606
References
11
Case No. ADJ1186781 (VNO 0516635) ADJ1590743 (VNO 0552326)
Regular
Jun 10, 2013

DANA BONSALL vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, Permissibly Self-Insured

Defendant County of Los Angeles petitioned to set aside an order compelling payment of $14,500 to lien claimant, The 4600 Group. The defendant argued the order was based on mistake, as they were unaware of prior payments made to Burbank Podiatry, which was part of the lien claim. Crucially, the assigned judge realized she was disqualified due to previously serving as defense counsel in this matter. The Appeals Board granted the petition, rescinded the prior order, and remanded the case to a new judge to determine if the settlement should be set aside.

WCABPetition to Set AsideStipulation and OrderLien ClaimantWCJ DisqualificationRule 9721.12(c)(2)Good CauseRescinded OrderRemandBurbank Podiatry
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leondopoulos v. Caradjas

The order was unanimously affirmed. The defendant was granted leave to answer the amended complaint within ten days after service of the order, with notice of entry. This is contingent upon the payment of $20 in costs and disbursements. No opinion was provided for this decision. The judges present for this order were Glennon, J. P., Cohn, Callahan, Van Voorhis, and Shientag, JJ.

OrderAffirmedAmended ComplaintCosts and DisbursementsLeave to AnswerPanel DecisionJudicial Panel
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 24,076 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