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. CV-23-0985
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 08, 2024

People v. Waterbury

This case involves an appeal by Alexander Waterbury from two County Court orders classifying him as a risk level two sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). Waterbury, who pleaded guilty to felonious sexual assault in New Hampshire involving a 14-year-old student he coached, sought a downward departure to risk level one. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the lower court's decision, finding that Waterbury demonstrated mitigating factors not adequately considered by the Risk Assessment Instrument (RAI). These factors included positive psychometric test results indicating a low risk of reoffending, extensive expert opinions, and strong familial support. The Court concluded that the totality of circumstances warranted classifying Waterbury as a risk level one sex offender.

Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA)Risk Level ClassificationDownward DeparturePsychometric TestingFamilial SupportSexual RecidivismAppellate ReviewSexual AssaultOffender RehabilitationNew Hampshire Law
References
42
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06013 [199 AD3d 1080]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 04, 2021

People v. Hoffman

Gary Hoffman appealed an order classifying him as a risk level three sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). In 2006, Hoffman pleaded guilty to possession of child pornography. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders initially recommended a level one classification, with an upward modification to level two. County Court, however, assessed additional points for risk factors 3 (number of victims) and 7 (relationship to victim), resulting in a level three classification. The Appellate Division found sufficient evidence for the risk factor assessments but reversed and remitted the matter because the County Court failed to provide findings and conclusions regarding Hoffman's request for a downward departure from the presumptive risk level.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORARisk Assessment InstrumentChild PornographyDownward Departure RequestRisk Level ThreeAppellate ReviewUlster CountyCounty CourtAppellate Division Third Department
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Commercial Risk Reinsurance Co. v. Security Insurance

Petitioners Commercial Risk Reinsurance Company Limited and Commercial Risk Re-Insurance Company (collectively “Commercial Risk”) initiated an action to vacate an arbitration award obtained by respondent Security Insurance Company of Hartford (“Security”). Security subsequently cross-moved to confirm the Award. The District Court denied Commercial Risk’s motion to vacate and granted Security’s motion to confirm the Award, finding that Commercial Risk failed to establish sufficient grounds for misconduct by the arbitrators. Commercial Risk then sought reconsideration of this order, arguing improper exclusion of a witness and documents related to damages. The Court denied the motion for reconsideration, reaffirming its original decision and emphasizing the broad discretion granted to arbitrators in procedural matters, particularly given the "Honorable Engagement" clause in the parties' agreement.

ArbitrationReinsurance ContractsVacatur of Arbitration AwardConfirmation of Arbitration AwardMotion for ReconsiderationFederal Arbitration ActInternational ArbitrationEvidentiary RulingsJudicial ReviewArbitrator Discretion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

474431 Associates v. AXA Global Risks US Insurance

This case involves an appeal by Allcity Insurance Company in a consolidated action seeking a declaratory judgment regarding co-insurance liability between Allcity and AXA Global Risks US Insurance Company. The dispute arose from an underlying action where an injured worker obtained a judgment against a property owner, which was satisfied by the owner's insurer, AIG. AIG then sought reimbursement from the worker's employer's carriers, Allcity (worker's compensation) and AXA (general liability). The Supreme Court initially favored AXA, but the appellate court reversed, holding that AXA's disclaimer of coverage was untimely under Insurance Law § 3420 (d). The matter was remitted to declare AXA a co-insurer with Allcity.

Insurance Law § 3420 (d)Disclaimer of CoverageTimely Notice RequirementCo-Insurance DisputeGeneral Liability InsuranceWorker's Compensation InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionAppellate Court DecisionDeclaratory ReliefPolicy Exclusion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.

The New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, acting as a governmental agency and successor in interest to several insolvent workers' compensation self-insured trusts, commenced an action against a third-party administrator (Consolidated Risk Services, Inc.), its employees, related corporate entities, insurance brokers (including Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc.), former trustees of one of the trusts (RITNY), and an actuarial firm (Regnier Consulting Group, Inc.). The plaintiff alleged misconduct and malfeasance by the defendants led to trust insolvencies and sought to recover accumulated deficits. The case involves cross appeals challenging the Supreme Court’s partial dismissal of the complaint, specifically concerning the timeliness of claims for breach of fiduciary duty, fraud, fraudulent inducement, breach of contract, and common-law indemnification, applying the repudiation and discovery rules for statute of limitations. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by dismissing specific claims against Hickey-Finn & Co., Inc., broadening the temporal scope of breach of fiduciary duty claims against other defendants, and reinstating common-law indemnification claims against several RITNY trustees, affirming the order as modified and remitting the case.

Workers' CompensationBreach of Fiduciary DutyFraudFraudulent InducementBreach of ContractCommon-Law IndemnificationStatute of LimitationsRepudiation RuleDiscovery RuleTrust Insolvency
References
27
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 27428
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 14, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Bd. v. Compensation Risk Mgrs., LLC

This action was brought by the New York State Workers' Compensation Board (WCB), as an assignee of former members of the Healthcare Industry Trust of New York (HITNY), against Compensation Risk Managers, LLC (CRM), HITNY trustees, and auditing firm UHY LLP. The WCB alleged mismanagement, breach of fiduciary duty, and negligent auditing, leading to the Trust's insolvency. Defendants moved to dismiss on grounds of standing, statute of limitations, and pleading particularity. The court dismissed certain derivative claims and negligent misrepresentation claims against some trustees due to standing issues and statute of limitations. All claims against UHY LLP were dismissed for lack of a near-privity relationship or prior precedent. An implied indemnity claim against the trustees was sustained. The WCB's cross-motion to consolidate related actions was denied.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured Trust (GSIT)Fiduciary DutyNegligenceNegligent MisrepresentationStatute of LimitationsStandingDerivative ActionImplied IndemnityAuditing Firm Liability
References
46
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2004

People v. Arotin

The case concerns an appeal by an unnamed defendant against an order from the Saratoga County Court, which classified him as a risk level III sex offender under New York's Sex Offender Registration Act. The defendant, previously convicted in Ohio for attempted gross sexual imposition and classified as a "sexually oriented offender," contested the New York classification upon his relocation, arguing the Full Faith and Credit Clause should compel New York to recognize his lower Ohio classification and that the evidence was insufficient for a Level III designation. The appellate court affirmed that states have the power to apply their own registration requirements, rejecting the Full Faith and Credit argument. However, it found that specific factors used to justify the level III classification, namely "deviate sexual intercourse" and "history of substance abuse," lacked clear and convincing evidence. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the order and remitted the matter to the County Court for reclassification.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Level ClassificationFull Faith and Credit ClauseRecidivismSexually Oriented OffenderAppellate ReviewClear and Convincing EvidenceOhio LawNew York LawSex Offender Assessment
References
19
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04674 [219 AD3d 1438]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 20, 2023

People v. Jony

This case is an appeal from an order designating the defendant, Hassan M. Jony, as a level two sex offender under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Supreme Court, Queens County, assessed 85 points, including 20 points under risk factor 7 for establishing a relationship with the victim for the primary purpose of victimization, and denied a downward departure. Jony challenged both the risk factor 7 assessment and the denial of a downward departure. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence that Jony groomed the 13 to 14-year-old complainant through sexually explicit communications after meeting her through her uncle. The court concluded that the facts distinguished the case from People v Cook and upheld the denial of downward departure due to the significant age disparity.

Sex Offender Registration ActSORARisk Factor 7GroomingDownward DepartureAppellate DivisionChild Sexual AbuseRelationship with VictimClear and Convincing EvidencePresumptive Risk Level
References
30
Case No. KA 11-00996
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2012

DIAZ, CARLOS, PEOPLE v

This case involves an appeal concerning the classification of Carlos Diaz under the Sex Offender Registration Act (SORA). The Monroe County Court initially determined him to be a level three risk, despite the risk assessment instrument (RAI) indicating a level two risk. The Board of Examiners of Sex Offenders recommended an upward departure based on his offense pattern and schizophrenia diagnosis. The Appellate Division, Fourth Judicial Department, found the County Court's upward departure to be an error, stating that the factors relied upon were either already accounted for by the RAI or lacked sufficient admissible evidence. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order, classifying Diaz as a level two risk, with Justice Fahey dissenting.

Sex Offender Registration ActRisk Assessment InstrumentUpward DepartureLevel Two RiskLevel Three RiskSchizophrenia DiagnosisMental IllnessAppellate ReviewForcible CompulsionSexual Offenses
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,202 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