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

Bette & Cring, LLC v. Brandle Meadows, LLC

Petitioner, a construction manager, sought to compel respondent to provide a verified statement regarding trust funds for a construction project under Lien Law article 3-A, claiming the initial statement was deficient. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, citing referral of the main contractual dispute to arbitration. On appeal, the court ruled that the arbitration did not negate the respondent's obligation to provide a compliant verified statement. The court found respondent's provided statement insufficient across multiple categories required by Lien Law § 75 (3). Consequently, the appeal court reversed the Supreme Court's order, denied respondent's motion to dismiss the appeal, granted the petition, and directed the respondent to furnish a compliant verified statement.

Lien LawVerified StatementConstruction ManagerTrust FundsArbitrationAppellate ReviewStatutory TrustReal Property ImprovementTrust BeneficiaryCompliance Deficiency
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jeffries v. Berney

The claimant was initially awarded compensation for injuries sustained in the employ of Morris Berney, D.D.S., and Berney Realty Corporation in 1975, which the Workers’ Compensation Board sustained in 1976 despite an employer appeal challenging the employment relationship. Subsequent awards in 1978 prompted the employer to request a medical examination. Later, in 1980 and 1981, the employer sought to introduce new evidence alleging fraud by the claimant in obtaining original benefits, formally applying to reopen the case in 1982 with supporting sworn statements. The Board reviewed all presented material, including the voluminous prior record, and affirmed its original findings of an employer-employee relationship and compensable accident. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by declining to take further testimony, as it had reviewed the sworn statements and other evidence, resolving the credibility issues in favor of the claimant.

Workers' CompensationAppealFraud AllegationEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceDiscretion of BoardReopening CaseCredibilityMedical Examination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Brian R.

The Administration for Children’s Services (ACS) moved to admit out-of-court statements from the non-respondent mother at a fact-finding hearing in a child protective proceeding against Mr. V. ACS alleged Mr. V. physically abused the mother in the presence of their child, and the mother is now unwilling to testify due to threats from Mr. V. and his family. Citing the Sirois doctrine, ACS requested the admission of these hearsay statements, arguing the respondent's misconduct caused the witness's unavailability. The court found that ACS met the threshold for a Sirois hearing, ordering one to determine the mother's unavailability, whether it was procured by Mr. V.'s misconduct, and if any statements qualify as "excited utterances." The court also ruled that the applicable standard of proof for these exceptions in Article 10 proceedings is a fair preponderance of the evidence.

Child Protective ProceedingSirois HearingHearsay ExceptionWitness UnavailabilityDefendant MisconductDomestic ViolenceFamily Court ActEvidentiary HearingBurden of ProofPreponderance of Evidence
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

55th Management Corp. v. Goldman

This case addresses whether an out-of-court statement made to a court evaluator in an Article 81 guardianship proceeding is protected by absolute privilege, thereby defeating a defamation claim. The defendant, a tenant, made allegedly defamatory remarks about a landlord to a court evaluator during the evaluator's investigation for a guardianship proceeding. The court considered if the remarks were pertinent, if a statement to a court evaluator is considered part of a judicial proceeding, and if the speaker had standing. The court found the remarks pertinent, extended the absolute privilege to statements made to court evaluators given their role as court agents, and affirmed the defendant's standing as a potential witness. Consequently, the defendant's motion to dismiss the defamation complaint was granted.

DefamationAbsolute PrivilegeJudicial ProceedingsCourt EvaluatorGuardianshipMental Hygiene Law Article 81Tenant-Landlord DisputeMotion to DismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)Scope of Privilege
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLeod v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) initiated civil contempt proceedings against Local Union No. 3 for violating a temporary injunction issued on October 28, 1971. The injunction prohibited Local 3 from inducing or encouraging its members employed by L. K. Comstock and Co., Lord Electric Co., and J. Livingston & Co. to refuse handling materials from New York Telephone Co. The court found that Local 3, through its attorney's statements and inaction, induced its members to engage in such refusals on multiple occasions. Consequently, the court found Local 3 in civil contempt, ordering it to comply with the injunction, submit a sworn statement of compliance, and pay the NLRB's costs and counsel fees.

Labor LawCivil ContemptTemporary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticesSecondary BoycottNational Labor Relations ActUnion MisconductWork StoppageInducementEmployee Refusal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 26, 2004

Claim of Lopresti v. Washington Mills

A claimant appealed an amended decision by the Workers' Compensation Board, which disqualified him from wage replacement benefits for violating Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. The claimant initially misrepresented how he sustained a knee injury, claiming he slipped on ice, but later admitted it was due to an altercation with a coworker. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found the injury compensable and no violation, the Board modified this, concluding the claimant knowingly made a false statement material to his claim. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, noting that the claimant's motivation to protect a coworker was a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court upheld the discretionary penalty of disqualification from wage replacement benefits, finding the Board's determination supported by substantial evidence.

False StatementFraudulent MisrepresentationWage Replacement DisqualificationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate AffirmationClaimant CredibilityMateriality of FalsehoodKnee Injury ClaimWorkplace AltercationStatutory Violation § 114-a
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Raggie

Severius Raggie, a debtor, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy in January 2006, which was subsequently dismissed in February 2006 due to his failure to comply with credit counseling requirements and other obligations. In January 2008, Raggie moved to amend his Schedule B and Statement of Financial Affairs to include a personal injury claim against CVP # 1, LLC et al. This motion was prompted by the defendants' attempt in state court to dismiss the personal injury action because it was not listed in Raggie's bankruptcy petition. The court addressed the core issue of whether a dismissed bankruptcy case, as opposed to a closed one, precludes a debtor's right to amend schedules under Bankruptcy Rule 1009(a). The court concluded that 'closed' under § 350 and Rule 1009 does not encompass 'dismissed,' thereby maintaining Raggie's right to amend. Finding no evidence of bad faith, fraud, or prejudice to creditors, the court granted Raggie's motion to amend his schedules, rendering the motion to vacate the dismissal order moot.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 13Schedule B AmendmentDismissed CaseClosed Case DistinctionPersonal Injury ClaimDebtor's RightsFederal Rules of Bankruptcy ProcedureBad FaithCreditor Prejudice
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Stanley C.

This case involves a juvenile respondent in Division For Youth (DFY) custody who absconded and subsequently surrendered. The respondent was questioned by his DFY counselor, David Pankratz, without Miranda warnings, leading to incriminating statements regarding burglary and grand larceny. Later, Monroe County Deputy Sheriff Joseph Bender also questioned the respondent, after Miranda warnings, resulting in another incriminating statement. The court ruled that Pankratz was engaged in law enforcement activity, thus his failure to provide Miranda warnings rendered the first statement inadmissible. The second statement to Deputy Bender was also suppressed as it was tainted by the initial inadmissible statement and because the respondent's parents or guardians were not notified or present during the interrogation. The motion to suppress both statements was granted due to the lack of 'special considerations of care' required for juvenile interrogations.

Miranda warningsjuvenile rightscustodial interrogationself-incriminationdue processsuppression of evidenceDivision For YouthFamily Courtcriminal procedurepolice interrogation
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Alaire

This case concerns an appeal of a criminal conviction where the defendant, a 16-year-old with schizophrenia, challenged the admissibility of statements made during police interrogation. The appellate court found that initial incriminating statements made prior to Miranda warnings should be suppressed because the defendant was in custodial interrogation, and his youth and mental state contributed to a coercive environment. However, a subsequent spontaneous statement made to his social worker, overheard by police after Miranda warnings, was deemed admissible as it was not coerced by police action. The judgment was partially reversed, with pre-Miranda statements suppressed and a new trial ordered, while the denial of suppression for the spontaneous statement was affirmed.

Miranda WarningsCustodial InterrogationSuppression of StatementsJuvenile RightsMentally Impaired DefendantVoluntary StatementsSocial Worker PrivilegeCriminal Procedure LawNew TrialDue Process
References
38
Showing 1-10 of 1,014 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