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. 2020 NY Slip Op 05642 [187 AD3d 1651]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Roesch v. State of New York

Petitioner Joseph Roesch, a resident at Central New York Psychiatric Center, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking assignment of counsel and poor person status. The Supreme Court, Oneida County, denied his application and dismissed the petition sua sponte. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the petition was wholly without merit as it sought only counsel without a proper cause of action or linkage to the respondent. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying poor person status, as the CPLR article 78 petition lacked arguable merit.

CPLR Article 78Poor Person StatusAssignment of CounselSua Sponte DismissalAppellate ReviewPsychiatric Center ResidentAbuse of DiscretionArguable MeritFinal JudgmentAppellate Division Fourth Department
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 22, 1980

Hilowitz v. Hilowitz

In a negligence action for personal injuries, the plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Queens County, dated October 22, 1980. The order, issued by Justice Hyman, had denied the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defense of collateral estoppel. The appellate court affirmed the order, holding that an arbitration award, even without judicial confirmation, can serve as a basis for res judicata and collateral estoppel if there was a final determination on the merits. The court referenced Kilduff v Donna Oil Corp. and distinguished Hana Heating & Air Conditioning Co. v Sheet Metal Workers Int. Assn. All other contentions raised by the plaintiff were deemed to be without merit.

NegligencePersonal InjuryAppealCollateral EstoppelRes JudicataArbitration AwardJudicial ConfirmationFinal DeterminationAppellate DecisionSupreme Court Order
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1985

Mallory v. Chestnut Manufacturing Co.

The employer appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning findings of accident, notice, and causal relationship. The court found undisputed testimony of the claimant falling on the employer's premises while performing duties. There was also proof that the person in charge had actual knowledge of the fall shortly after it occurred. The Board had not made a finding on causal relationship, restoring the matter for further development. The employer's claim of inconsistency with prior Board decisions was deemed without merit, and thus the Board's decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAppealAccidentNotice of InjuryCausal RelationshipEmployer LiabilityBoard DecisionAffirmed DecisionJudicial ReviewWorkplace Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Misuraca v. Perales

This case involves appeals by the State and local Commissioners from two Supreme Court orders in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The initial proceeding challenged a denial of a shelter allowance to an unnamed petitioner and was settled by stipulation. The Supreme Court had awarded attorney's fees to the petitioner as a 'prevailing party' under 42 USC § 1983. The appeals court dismissed the appeal concerning the denial of reargument, noting no appeal lies from such an order. Crucially, the court reversed the order awarding attorney's fees, ruling that the petitioner's federal due process claim, concerning the failure to produce a witness, was 'wholly without merit.' The court found the dispute involved a legal conclusion from undisputed facts, not a factual issue requiring cross-examination under Goldberg v Kelly, thus not entitling the petitioner to attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988.

Attorney's FeesCPLR Article 78Due ProcessShelter AllowancePrevailing PartyFederal Constitutional ClaimState ClaimsStipulation of Settlement42 USC § 198342 USC § 1988
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thielmann v. MF Global Holdings Ltd. (In re MF Global Holdings Ltd.)

This case involves motions to dismiss an amended class action complaint filed by former employees (Plaintiffs) against James W. Giddens, as SIPA Trustee for MF Global Inc., and Louis J. Freeh, as Chapter 11 Trustee for MF Global Holdings Ltd., MF Global Finance USA, Inc., and MF Global Holdings USA, Inc. The Plaintiffs allege violations of the federal WARN Act and the New York WARN Act due to employment termination without sufficient notice. The Court granted the SIPA Trustee's motion to dismiss with prejudice, finding the "liquidating fiduciary" principle applicable to MFGI as its statutory purpose was liquidation. However, the Chapter 11 Trustee's motion to dismiss was granted without prejudice and with leave to amend, as the factual record did not conclusively establish that the Chapter 11 Debtors were solely liquidating at the time of layoffs, and the complaint was otherwise deficient. Claims for vacation pay and unpaid wages were dismissed without prejudice to be handled in the claims allowance process.

WARN ActNew York WARN ActClass ActionMass LayoffsPlant ClosingsBankruptcy ProceedingsCorporate LiquidationChapter 11 ReorganizationSIPA TrusteeLiquidating Fiduciary Principle
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Mejia v. Camabo Industries, Inc.

This case details an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The claimant, injured as a bridge painter, requested a change of venue for his workers' compensation hearings to White Plains, Westchester County, for convenience. This request was denied by a Workers' Compensation Law Judge based on a general policy that hearings should be scheduled in the claimant's district of residence, as the claimant lived in Bronx County and worked in Nassau County. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the denial and further assessed $500 in costs against the claimant's counsel for continuing the matter without reasonable grounds. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the challenge to the Board's policy was not preserved for review and was, in any event, without merit. The court also upheld the denial of the venue request and the imposition of costs on counsel, finding substantial evidence that the request was made without a reasonable basis under Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii).

Venue ChangeWorkers' CompensationAppellate ReviewCosts AssessmentCounsel PenaltyBoard DecisionJudicial ReviewPolicy ChallengePreservation of ErrorSubstantial Evidence
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Bonilla

Claimant, a postal worker, was arrested for threatening suicide and subsequently required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by releasing his medical records to determine his fitness for duty. He refused to release these records, which prevented the completion of the psychiatric examination and ultimately led to him not being permitted to return to work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board then disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. This decision was based on the premise that a claimant who fails to take a reasonably required step as a prerequisite to continued employment is deemed to have voluntarily left their job without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Voluntary separationUnemployment benefitsGood cause for leaving employmentMedical records releaseFitness for dutyPsychiatric evaluationPostal workerDisqualification from benefitsSubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Kessler

This case involves an Article 78 proceeding initiated to challenge a determination by a local union. The proceeding was ultimately dismissed on the merits by an order of the court. This dismissal was subsequently and unanimously affirmed without any associated costs. The decision was rendered without a written opinion by the panel of judges present.

Article 78Civil Practice ActUnion DeterminationProceeding DismissalAffirmed DecisionNo Opinion IssuedJudicial ReviewLocal Union
References
1
Case No. LAO 0726907
Regular
May 29, 2007

HABTNESH EZRA vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH SERVICES

Applicant's counsel, Martin Reiner, is denied disqualification of the Appeals Board and ordered to pay $\$ 2,500$ in sanctions. The Board found Reiner's written comments to be intentionally disruptive and without merit, and his response did not provide good cause to avoid sanctions or grounds for disqualification. The sanctions imposed do not impact the applicant's right to representation or a hearing on the merits of her case.

DisqualificationSanctionsApplicant's CounselWillful IntentDelay ProceedingsImproper MotiveWithout MeritWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardLabor CodeCalifornia Code of Regulations
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stone v. Williams

Robert Stone was injured at a Merit service station in Staten Island on April 3, 1977, when he was struck by a car driven by Kerry Williams. A jury assessed Stone's damages at $200,000 and apportioned 20% liability to the Merit service station defendants. The dissenting opinion argues against the majority's view that the service station owed no duty to direct traffic and that its negligence was not a causative factor. Justice Gibbons contends that the service station had a duty of reasonable care to its patrons and that the jury's finding of negligence and proximate cause, based on inadequate staffing and failure to control traffic, was supported by the evidence. He also argues that the $200,000 damage award was not excessive, citing the severity of Stone's injuries, including a broken leg, a mangled hand with a shattered middle finger, and the amputation of a ring finger, resulting in a 40-50% permanent loss of use of his left hand.

Personal InjuryNegligencePremises LiabilityDuty of CareProximate CauseForeseeabilityJury VerdictDamagesExcessive DamagesAppellate Review
References
14
Showing 1-10 of 4,607 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