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. 2016 NY Slip Op 08300 [145 AD3d 492]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 08, 2016

Netzahuall v. All Will LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding the denial of defendant Lime Light's cross-motion to dismiss common-law indemnification claims brought by defendant All Will LLC. The plaintiff, Gabriel Netzahuall, an employee of Lime Light, sustained injuries but not a "grave injury" as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11. Although the Workers' Compensation Board previously determined Lime Light to be the plaintiff's employer, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's finding that All Will, the premises owner, was not collaterally estopped from challenging this determination. The court reasoned that All Will was not a party to the prior Workers' Compensation proceeding and therefore did not have a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of plaintiff's employer.

indemnificationcollateral estoppelWorkers' Compensation Lawemployer-employee relationshipgrave injurypremises liabilityappellate practicestatutory interpretationprivity of partieslitigation opportunity
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 19, 2013

In Re the Estate of Cameron

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Surrogate’s Court of Tioga County concerning the probate of William G. Cameron's will. The decedent, while hospitalized, executed a will leaving his estate to his wife, the petitioner. One of his sons, the respondent, filed objections, alleging the will was not duly executed, decedent lacked testamentary capacity, and the will was procured by fraud and undue influence. The Surrogate’s Court granted summary judgment to the petitioner, dismissing the objections and admitting the will to probate. The appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that the petitioner established a prima facie case for probate and the respondent failed to raise a material issue of fact regarding due execution, testamentary capacity, fraud, or undue influence.

Will ProbateTestamentary CapacityUndue InfluenceFraudSummary JudgmentAppealSurrogate's CourtAttesting WitnessesDue ExecutionDecedent's Estate
References
13
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05122 [208 AD3d 1408]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 01, 2022

Matter of Lefkow (Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Lindsey Lefkow, a production coordinator, traveled to Costa Rica and remained there due to project delays and a COVID-19 travel ban. She filed for unemployment benefits from Costa Rica, despite being informed she could not claim benefits while out of the country, and subsequently received state and federal pandemic unemployment benefits. The Department of Labor found her ineligible due to not being available for employment in her labor market and unable to certify benefits from Costa Rica. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this, also finding willful misrepresentations warranting recoverable overpayments and penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the determination that claimant was ineligible and made willful misrepresentations.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsEligibility for BenefitsOut of Country CertificationWillful MisrepresentationRecoverable OverpaymentsPandemic Unemployment AssistanceCOVID-19 ImpactTravel BanCertification RequirementsAvailability for Employment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sivel v. Readers Digest, Inc.

The case concerns a diversity action where defendants moved for summary judgment regarding plaintiff Sivel's claims of breach of an oral employment contract and misrepresentation against Reader's Digest and its executives. Sivel alleged that he was orally assured permanent employment in the United States and termination only for serious cause, which he argued limited Reader's Digest's right to fire him "at-will." The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the breach of contract claim, reasoning that Sivel's testimony, if credible, could establish an express agreement overriding the at-will presumption under New York law. However, summary judgment was granted to the defendants on the misrepresentation claims, as the court found these allegations to be inextricably linked to the alleged contract terms and thus enforceable only through a contract action.

Employment ContractAt-Will EmploymentSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractMisrepresentationOral AgreementEmployee HandbookNew York LawFraudulent InducementJob Security
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2014

Matter of Poupore v. Clinton County Highway Department

Claimant sustained work-related injuries in 2002 and was classified as permanently partially disabled in 2005. In 2012, the employer alleged claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a, presenting video surveillance showing activities inconsistent with his reported limitations to an independent medical examiner (IME), Marco Berard. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found a violation, imposing penalties. The Workers’ Compensation Board modified the ruling, agreeing to willful misrepresentations during the IME and imposing a penalty of wage replacement benefits paid from April 27, 2012, to September 14, 2012, while permanently disqualifying him from future benefits. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of willful misrepresentations concerning material facts and that the penalty was not an abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationFraudMisrepresentationSurveillance EvidenceIndependent Medical ExaminationPermanent Partial DisabilityWage Replacement BenefitsPenaltyAppellate ReviewMaterial Fact
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 2006

Auble v. Doyle

Plaintiffs initiated an action alleging breach of contract, conversion, unjust enrichment, and negligent misrepresentation against defendant Patrie Doyle. The dispute arose from health care insurance benefits paid to Doyle's former wife between 1997 and 2002, despite her ineligibility post-divorce in 1984. The Supreme Court's initial order, which granted parts of the plaintiffs' motion and denied Doyle's cross-motion for summary judgment, was appealed. The appellate court modified the order, denying parts of the plaintiffs' motion concerning breach of contract and negligent misrepresentation. It awarded plaintiffs $57.50 for conversion and granted Doyle's cross-motion to dismiss the unjust enrichment and negligent misrepresentation claims against him. The order, as modified, was affirmed.

breach of contractconversionunjust enrichmentnegligent misrepresentationsummary judgmenthealth care benefitsinsurance eligibilitymarital statusappellate reviewcredibility assessment
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Hayes

This case concerns an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County's dismissal of a petitioner's application to hold the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, who had accumulated significant arrears and made no payments since September 1999, claimed disability due to an automobile accident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his inability to pay. The Hearing Examiner erred by finding no willful violation and by sua sponte reducing the respondent's child support obligation without a cross-petition or adequate proof of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the petitioner's application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that a willful violation was warranted and the downward modification was improper.

Child SupportWillful ViolationSupport ArrearsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceDownward ModificationFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofNonpayment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Voll

The debtors, Patrick L. Voll and Linda P. Voll, filed for Chapter 13 bankruptcy. The New York State Department of Taxation and Finance ("Tax Department") willfully violated the automatic stay by continuing to garnish Mrs. Voll's wages post-petition, despite receiving notice of the bankruptcy filing. The garnishment ceased, and the improperly deducted funds were returned after the Debtors filed a motion for sanctions. The court found that the Tax Department willfully violated the automatic stay. However, the court denied the Debtors' claim for emotional distress damages, finding they failed to provide clear and convincing evidence of significant emotional harm distinct from the general stressors of bankruptcy and other life events. The court awarded the Debtors $13,625.00 in attorneys' fees as actual damages for the willful violation of the stay.

Bankruptcy LawAutomatic Stay ViolationWage GarnishmentSanctions MotionAttorneys' Fees AwardChapter 13 BankruptcyTaxation and FinanceActual DamagesEmotional Distress ClaimsWillful Violation
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wills v. Radioshack Corp.

Plaintiff Jaime Wills initiated a putative class action against RadioShack Corporation, alleging violations of New York Labor Law regarding overtime pay calculation. Wills contended that RadioShack's practice of paying performance-based bonuses to its store managers rendered its use of the U.S. Department of Labor’s Fluctuating Workweek (FWW) method unlawful, requiring instead a higher 'time-and-a-half' rate. RadioShack moved to dismiss, asserting its compliance with NYLL, which aligns with the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The Court determined that performance-based bonuses were compatible with the FWW method and that a 2011 DOL Final Ruling did not alter this interpretation. Consequently, the Court granted RadioShack's motion to dismiss the complaint.

Fluctuating WorkweekOvertime PayPerformance BonusesNew York Labor LawFair Labor Standards ActClass ActionMotion to DismissCollateral EstoppelWage and Hour DisputeEmployment Law
References
46
Case No. ADJ6928750
Regular
Apr 13, 2016

WILL LARA vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

The applicant, Will Lara, had filed a Petition for Reconsideration with the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board regarding a decision. However, the petitioner, Will Lara, has since withdrawn this petition. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the Petition for Reconsideration.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDismissalWithdrawnApplicantDefendantCounty of Los AngelesSelf-insuredADJ6928750Los Angeles District Office
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 1,554 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