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. ADJ2888679
Regular
Dec 29, 2011

RAMON BARAJAS vs. PIRANHA PIPE AND PRE-CAST, INC., MARSH USA

Lien claimants Face-2-Face and Dickman sought reconsideration after their liens were dismissed for non-appearance at a lien conference. The Appeals Board granted reconsideration, rescinded the dismissal order, and reinstated the liens. This action was taken because subsequent stipulations and orders on November 15, 2011, approved settlements for both Face-2-Face and Dickman's liens, resolving their claims. The Board's decision effectively affirmed these settlements while dismissing other previously dismissed liens.

Lien ClaimantReconsiderationOrder Dismissing LiensNotice of Intention to Dismiss LiensWCJPetition for ReconsiderationStipulation and OrderStipulation and AgreementRescindedIndustrial Injury
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 2012

Gansburg v. Blachman

This case concerns an appeal by Eli Blachman from an order of the Supreme Court, Kings County. Blachman sought to dismiss a proceeding to confirm an arbitration award and impose sanctions on the petitioners. The original arbitration award directed Blachman to pay a real estate commission to Menachem Gansburg and Aaron Minkowitz. Blachman argued the award was void due to an alleged illegal fee-splitting agreement between licensed broker Gansburg and unlicensed Minkowitz. The Supreme Court denied Blachman's motion and granted the petitioners' request to amend their petition to seek judgment only for Gansburg. The appellate court affirmed the order, finding no evidence of the alleged illegal agreement presented to the arbitrators, and that the award did not violate public policy on its face. The court also held that the amendment of the petition was properly granted.

Arbitration AwardReal Estate CommissionFee SplittingPublic PolicyCPLR Article 75Amended PetitionAppellate ProcedureLicensed BrokerUnlicensed BrokerMotion to Dismiss
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Weslin

This case involves eleven defendants, including Norman Weslin, charged with violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act (FACE) after being arrested outside a Planned Parenthood facility in Rochester, New York. Defendant Weslin moved to dismiss the information, arguing that FACE is unconstitutional. Chief Judge Larimer denied the motion, finding FACE to be content-neutral and subject to intermediate scrutiny. The court upheld FACE against First Amendment Free Speech and Free Exercise Clause challenges, and also affirmed that it is a valid exercise of Congress's authority under the Commerce Clause, as it regulates activities that substantially affect interstate commerce.

Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances ActFirst AmendmentFree SpeechFree Exercise of ReligionCommerce ClauseConstitutional ChallengeAbortion Clinic ProtestsPhysical ObstructionContent-Neutral RegulationIntermediate Scrutiny
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chassman v. People Resources

The plaintiff sought the return of $1,850 paid to People Resources, a self-described 'organization for singles,' alleging the contract was void under General Business Law § 394-c, procured by fraud, and for lack of services. Defendant argued the law was inapplicable and that arbitration was mandated by the contract. The court determined that People Resources operates as a 'social referral service' under the broad interpretation of General Business Law § 394-c, despite its claim of merely providing a 'forum.' The contract was found to violate several statutory provisions, including charging excessive fees and lacking mandatory cancellation options, rendering it void and unenforceable due to its public policy implications. Consequently, the arbitration clause within the void contract was also deemed unenforceable, leading the court to grant the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and deny the defendant's.

Social Referral ServiceContract VoidabilitySummary JudgmentArbitration ClauseConsumer Protection LawGeneral Business LawUnenforceable ContractFraudulent MisrepresentationDating ServicesLegislative Intent
References
11
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 03080 [228 AD3d 426]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 06, 2024

DiMaggio v. Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J.

Plaintiffs Salvatore DiMaggio et al. alleged that Salvatore was struck in the face by a metal rod during a construction project, resulting in injuries to his face, head, and spine, as well as aggravation of prior asymptomatic conditions. Defendants Port Authority of New York and New Jersey et al. subsequently sought authorizations for records related to 19 prior incidents involving an individual named "Salvatore DiMaggio" and moved to compel discovery or dismiss the case. The Supreme Court initially granted defendants' motion to the extent of compelling plaintiffs to provide a Jackson affidavit and authorizations. However, the Appellate Division modified this order, ruling that the requirement for a Jackson affidavit was improper, as that procedure applies when documents are claimed to be missing, not when seeking authorizations from third parties, and CPLR 3130 prohibits interrogatories upon a party served with a demand for a bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the compulsion for plaintiffs to provide authorizations for records related to claims made by Salvatore and incidents in which he was involved, given his acknowledgement of involvement in some prior incidents and failure to timely object to the demands. The court further limited the scope of these authorizations to records relating to injuries to or treatment of Salvatore DiMaggio's face, mouth, head, cervical spine, and/or thoracolumbar spine, due to the nature of the alleged injuries and the principle that general anxiety/depression from physical injuries does not place entire mental health into contention, while allowing them to be unrestricted by date due to allegations of exacerbated preexisting injuries.

DiscoveryAuthorizationsMedical RecordsPreexisting InjuriesJackson AffidavitCPLR 3126CPLR 3130Waiver of ObjectionAppellate ProcedurePersonal Injury
References
11
Case No. ADJ7965938
Regular
Jul 08, 2013

ALDO GUTIERREZ vs. PROGRESSIVE INTERNATIONAL SECURITY, GALLAGHER BASSETT

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted the applicant's Petition for Removal, finding that the prior Order of Dismissal was void because it violated WCAB Rule 10582 by not following proper dismissal procedures and instead included a clause making it voidable by objection. The Board rescinded both the void Order of Dismissal and subsequent related orders that were predicated on its validity. The case is returned to the trial level for further proceedings.

Petition for RemovalOrder of DismissalDeclaration of Readiness to ProceedLack of ProsecutionWCAB Rule 10582Void ab initioPetition to ReopenMandatory Settlement ConferenceWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial Injury
References
0
Case No. ADJ7499067
Regular
Jan 25, 2013

SUSANA AGUILAR VEGA vs. INTELLIGENT BEAUTY, ONEBEACON AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

Lien claimants Face 2 Face Interpreting and One World Translation Inc. sought reconsideration of an order dismissing their liens with prejudice. The WCAB dismissed their petitions because they were unverified, a requirement under Labor Code section 5902. The WCJ's report alerted the lien claimants to this defect, and they failed to cure it or provide an explanation within a reasonable time. Even if the petitions had been verified, the WCAB would have denied them on the merits.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissal of LiensUnverified PetitionLabor Code Section 5902Verification DefectGood CauseNotice of Intention to DismissLien ClaimantsWCJ Report
References
1
Case No. 146
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. McCrudden

This Memorandum and Order addresses two supervised release violations by Vincent McCrudden. Charge 4 alleged McCrudden associated with known felons, which the court found proven through letters and phone calls, determining that face-to-face contact is not a prerequisite for association. Charge 5 asserted McCrudden made materially false statements to his probation officer by denying contact with felons. The court ruled these falsehoods were material because they impaired the officer's ability to monitor and make informed decisions about McCrudden's compliance. Both charges were proven by a preponderance of the evidence.

supervised release violationassociation with felonsfalse statementsmaterialityprobation officercriminal activitySecond Circuit precedentfederal law18 U.S.C. 1001preponderance of evidence
References
11
Case No. ADJ7529761
Regular
Sep 02, 2018

MARIA GARCIA vs. GREEN CUISINE, INC., GOLDEN EAGLE INSURANCE COMPANY, SOUTHERN INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves Southern Insurance Company seeking reconsideration of an arbitrator's award of contribution to Golden Eagle Insurance Company. Southern argued a contribution petition filed before a Compromise and Release (C&R) approval was void, and Golden Eagle missed the subsequent one-year limitations period. The Board denied reconsideration, adopting the arbitrator's report and finding the initial petition timely filed under Labor Code Section 5500.5(e). The Board clarified that filing before award approval does not void a contribution petition, especially when the C&R doesn't require a refiling.

Petition for ReconsiderationCompromise and ReleasePetition for ContributionLabor Code section 5500.5(e)ContributionArbitratorFindings and AwardGolden Eagle Insurance CompanySouthern Insurance CompanyIndustrial Injury
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 415 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