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. 2018 NY Slip Op 03795 [161 AD3d 1478]
Regular Panel Decision
May 24, 2018

Matter of Attorneys In Violation of Judiciary Law § 468-a. (Ettelson)

Julie Ann Ettelson, now known as Julie A. Laczkowski, was suspended from practicing law in 2009 due to noncompliance with attorney registration requirements under Judiciary Law § 468-a. She filed a motion for reinstatement in April 2018, which was reviewed by the Attorney Grievance Committee. The Committee provided findings and deferred to the Court's discretion. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the respondent met all requirements for reinstatement, including completing the Multistate Professional Responsibility Examination, maintaining current registration, and demonstrating good character and fitness. The Court also determined that her reinstatement would serve the public interest. Consequently, the Court granted her motion and reinstated her as an attorney.

Attorney ReinstatementProfessional MisconductJudiciary LawAttorney Grievance CommitteeAppellate DivisionAttorney RegistrationDisciplinary ProceedingsLegal EthicsSuspension of AttorneyCharacter and Fitness
References
11
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 03294 [184 AD3d 223]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2020

Matter of Mauser

Marc R. Mauser, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The Attorney Grievance Committee initiated disciplinary action against him for neglecting a client's personal injury case, failing to communicate for approximately 18 months, and making misrepresentations to the client, mediator, and the Committee regarding the case status and reasons for delays. Mauser also failed to diligently finalize a settlement and disburse funds promptly. The parties reached a joint agreement for discipline by consent, stipulating to violations of several Rules of Professional Conduct, including neglect of a legal matter, failure to promptly comply with client requests for information, failure to act with reasonable diligence, inadequate supervision of staff, and engaging in dishonest conduct. Despite aggravating factors, mitigating factors such as no prior discipline and acceptance of responsibility led to the agreed-upon sanction of public censure, which the Court granted.

Attorney disciplineprofessional misconductneglect of dutyfailure to communicatemisrepresentationpublic censureRules of Professional Conductsettlement delayclient communicationsupervisory failures
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 07, 1978

SOCIALIST WKRS. PARTY v. Attorney General of US

This case involves an action by the Socialist Workers Party (SWP) and the Young Socialist Alliance (YSA) against various federal agencies and officials, primarily the Attorney General and the FBI, for alleged constitutional violations stemming from extensive FBI informant activities and disruption programs. The current opinion addresses the Attorney General's refusal to comply with a May 31, 1977, court order to produce 18 confidential FBI informant files to plaintiffs' counsel. The court rejected the Attorney General's arguments concerning informant confidentiality, appellate review, and alternative sanctions, emphasizing the files' indispensable nature for the litigation of plaintiffs' claims, which include demands for damages and injunctive relief. The court ruled that the Attorney General must comply with the production order by July 7, 1978, or face civil contempt, underscoring the judiciary's power to enforce orders even against high-ranking government officials.

Informant ConfidentialityDiscovery DisputeCivil ContemptGovernment MisconductFBI SurveillancePolitical OrganizationsFirst Amendment RightsConstitutional ViolationsAppellate ReviewAttorney General
References
35
Case No. ADJ273572
Regular
Nov 14, 2008

DIANE DRUEBERT vs. KELLY STAFF LEASING, INC.

This case concerns an award of attorney's fees and costs to the applicant's counsel for successfully opposing the defendant's Petition for Writ of Review at the appellate level. The Court of Appeal remanded the matter for this specific purpose. The Appeals Board awarded $4,350.00 in attorney's fees and $142.61 in costs, totaling $4,492.61, after reviewing the attorney's itemized time and the complexity of the appellate work.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Reasonable CostsCourt of AppealAppellate Attorney's FeesComplex IssuesLegislative IntentSocial Security Offset
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Legal Aid Society v. Association of Legal Aid Attorneys

The Legal Aid Society sought a preliminary injunction against the Association of Legal Aid Attorneys and its officers to prevent the disciplining of striking union members who crossed picket lines. The plaintiff also claimed tortious interference and a civil rights conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) on behalf of itself, non-striking attorneys, and indigent clients. The District Court denied the injunction, finding several impediments to success on the merits. These included the NLRB's primary jurisdiction, the Norris-LaGuardia Act's prohibitions, and the plaintiff's lack of standing for third-party claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the conspiracy allegations under Section 1985(3) were conclusory and lacked substantial merit.

Labor DisputePreliminary InjunctionUnion DisciplinePicket LinesNational Labor Relations Act (NLRA)Norris-LaGuardia ActStanding (Law)Conspiracy (Law)Civil Rights (42 U.S.C. § 1985(3))Tortious Interference
References
32
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07712
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2020

Matter of Schlossberg

Aaron M. Schlossberg, an attorney, was publicly censured by the Appellate Division, First Department, for professional misconduct. The charges stemmed from a May 2018 incident in a Manhattan delicatessen where Schlossberg verbally confronted staff and a patron for speaking Spanish, making offensive remarks and threatening to call Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). He admitted to violating Rules of Professional Conduct rule 8.4 (h) by engaging in conduct that adversely reflects on his fitness as a lawyer. The parties jointly moved for discipline by consent, agreeing to a public censure, which the court imposed. The court also granted Schlossberg's cross-motion to seal audio-visual recordings of the incident due to documented threats against him.

Attorney MisconductPublic CensureVerbal TiradeImmigration ThreatsProfessional EthicsRules of Professional ConductDiscipline by ConsentAppellate DivisionFirst DepartmentSealing Order
References
6
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 04524 [186 AD3d 23]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 13, 2020

Matter of Doris

The Attorney Grievance Committee (AGC) initiated a disciplinary proceeding against attorney Lawrence A. Doris following client complaints of professional misconduct, including failure to file a personal injury case and lack of communication. Despite numerous attempts by the AGC through letters, emails, and a judicial subpoena, Mr. Doris failed to respond to the allegations or appear for a deposition. The AGC subsequently moved for his immediate suspension from the practice of law due to his willful noncompliance and failure to cooperate with their investigation. The Appellate Division, First Department, granted the AGC's motion, finding that Mr. Doris's conduct warranted immediate suspension. This decision underscores the importance of attorney cooperation in disciplinary matters and protection of the public interest.

Attorney disciplineProfessional misconductNoncooperation with investigationImmediate suspensionGrievance CommitteeClient complaintFailure to communicateJudicial subpoenaPublic interest threatAppellate Division
References
6
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 [161 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Machado

This case involves reciprocal discipline against attorney Esmeralda Machado. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought to discipline Machado based on a New Jersey Supreme Court order permanently barring her from appearing pro hac vice due to unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Machado had repeatedly failed to pay required fees, continued to practice in New Jersey despite her pro hac vice admission terminating, misused another attorney's letterhead, and made false statements in a divorce proceeding. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending Machado from the practice of law in New York for two years, effective June 11, 2018. The court found her misconduct in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York.

Attorney MisconductUnauthorized Practice of LawReciprocal DisciplineProfessional EthicsSuspensionNew Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingsFalse StatementsFraudDishonestyAppellate Division First Department
References
10
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00274 [223 AD3d 105]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2024

Matter of Lilly

Respondent, an attorney, faced a disciplinary proceeding initiated by the Attorney Grievance Committee for falsely certifying compliance with continuing legal education (CLE) requirements in two attorney registration renewals. The misconduct occurred on September 6, 2019, and October 22, 2021. Despite initially making false certifications, he subsequently completed the required CLEs retroactively. Both parties jointly moved for discipline by consent, stipulating to aggravating factors such as repeated false certifications while under investigation and self-interest, alongside mitigating factors like remorse, full cooperation, absence of client misconduct, a long untarnished career, and pro bono work. The court granted the joint motion, imposing a two-month suspension from the practice of law, effective February 22, 2024, citing relevant precedents for similar sanctions.

Attorney MisconductCLE RequirementsFalse CertificationAttorney RegistrationProfessional Conduct RulesDisciplinary ProceedingTwo-Month SuspensionMitigationAggravating FactorsAppellate Division
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,211 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