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. 2022 NY Slip Op 01011
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2022

Hamm v. Review Assoc., LLC

The plaintiff, Peter Hamm, an employee, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while servicing a security system at premises owned by Review Associates, LLC and leased by Fresh Direct, LLC. He initiated a personal injury action alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240(1), and 241(6). The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified this order, denying summary judgment for the Labor Law § 240(1) claim against both defendants due to triable issues of fact regarding whether the work constituted "repairs" or "routine maintenance." Additionally, the court denied summary judgment for the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Fresh Direct, LLC, as it failed to establish a lack of notice regarding the defective ladder. The court affirmed the dismissal of the Labor Law § 241(6) claim against both defendants and the common-law negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims against Review Associates, LLC.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 200Common-law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionDuty to Maintain Safe PremisesRoutine Maintenance vs. RepairDangerous Condition
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parson v. Portuondo

Petitioner Jerry E. Parson sought a writ of habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, challenging his conviction. He objected to a Magistrate Judge's recommendation to deny his petition, arguing his reply brief was overlooked. The District Court conducted a full review, addressing Parson's claims of alibi defense preclusion and ineffective assistance of counsel. The Court found the alibi claim procedurally barred and lacking actual prejudice, and determined that the Appellate Division's rejection of the ineffective assistance claim was not contrary to established federal law. Consequently, the petition for writ of habeas corpus was denied, and a certificate of appealability was withheld.

habeas corpusineffective assistance of counselalibi defenseprocedural defaultactual prejudiceconstitutional rightsfederal reviewcriminal procedurejudicial reviewconviction
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Caruso v. Civilian Complaint Review Board

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by police officers in the City of New York to permanently enjoin the enforcement of section 440 of the New York City Charter, which established a new Civilian Complaint Review Board (CCRB). Petitioners argued that section 440 failed to protect their constitutional privilege against self-incrimination, was unconstitutionally vague, and violated their contractual rights. The court held that use immunity automatically attaches by operation of law when public employees are compelled to testify under threat of dismissal, thereby safeguarding their Fifth Amendment rights without explicit statutory authorization. It further determined that the City Charter constituted a 'change in the law,' preventing any impairment of contractual rights. Consequently, the court denied injunctive relief and dismissed the petition.

Self-incriminationUse immunityFifth AmendmentCPLR Article 78Police misconductCivilian oversightConstitutional lawDue processCollective bargainingNew York City Charter
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People ex rel. Brown v. McNeill

The relator, an inmate of Matteawan State Hospital, filed a writ of habeas corpus seeking release, alleging sanity and challenging the constitutionality of Correction Law § 412, which facilitated his administrative transfer from Harlem Valley State Hospital due to criminal tendencies. The court upheld the relator's insanity based on psychiatric testimony and affirmed the constitutionality of § 412, distinguishing or rejecting the reasoning of a U.S. Court of Appeals decision that deemed it unconstitutional. Despite affirming the statute's constitutionality, the court recognized the need for judicial review of such administrative transfers to prevent arbitrary action. Therefore, the case was remanded for a further hearing to assess the propriety of the relator's transfer based on detailed evidence of his alleged criminal tendencies.

Habeas CorpusMental Health LawCorrectional LawAdministrative TransferDue ProcessConstitutional LawInsanity DefenseCriminal TendenciesJudicial ReviewMatteawan State Hospital
References
15
Case No. ADJ6785479
Regular
Dec 04, 2013

JEROME WILLIAMS vs. NEW YORK KNICKERBOCKERS, CHUBB GROUP for FEDERAL INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an award of additional attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney for services rendered in successfully defending against the defendant's petition for a writ of review. The Court of Appeal, having denied the writ and remanded the case, directed the Board to award supplemental fees. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has reviewed the record and determined a reasonable fee of $3,500.00 for the appellate work performed by Ronald J. Mix. This award is made against Federal Insurance Company, in addition to any other compensation.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewSupplemental AwardAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Appellate Attorney's FeeRonald J. MixFederal Insurance CompanyEmployers Mutual Liability Insurance Company v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd.
References
1
Case No. ADJ9770975
Regular
Mar 13, 2020

GUSTAVO RUBALCAVA, vs. AMERJIT GILL AND COAST XPRESS AKA COAST EXPRESS, INC.,

This case concerns an award of additional attorney's fees to the applicant's attorney following a successful defense against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Court of Appeal had remanded the matter for such an award. The Appeals Board awarded $20,500.00 in attorney's fees and $712.69 in costs, reducing the requested amounts due to duplicative entries and internal copying charges. The award is for services rendered in opposing the writ of review, considering the complexity of the issues and the quality of the appellate work.

Labor Code § 5801supplemental awardattorney's feeswrit of reviewFifth District Court of Appealverified petitionhourly rateappellate workreasonable feescomplexity of issues
References
2
Case No. ADJ6861829
Regular
Jun 13, 2012

BART JAMES JOHNSON vs. BEYETTE'S TREE CARE

This case involves a supplemental award of attorney's fees to Bart James Johnson's attorney, pursuant to Labor Code § 5801. The Court of Appeal denied the employer's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis. Consequently, the case was remanded for attorney's fees. The applicant's attorney requested $3,500.00 for ten hours of work at $350 per hour related to the writ of review. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board deemed this fee reasonable and awarded it against the uninsured employer.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSupplemental Attorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Petition for Writ of ReviewRemandReasonable Attorney FeesStipulationPetition for FeeAnswer to PetitionLegal Services
References
1
Case No. ADJ2103088
Regular
Nov 13, 2012

DONNA FUNCHEON vs. SAN LEANDRO HOSPITAL, CNA CLAIMS PLUS, AMERICAN CASUALTY, ZURICH AMERICAN INSURANCE CO.

This case involves Zurich American Insurance petitioning for reconsideration of an order awarding applicant's counsel $181,883.97 in attorney fees based on a finding of permanent total disability. Zurich argued that their subsequent petition for a writ of review stayed the attorney fee order. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration, clarifying that a writ petition does not automatically stay or suspend the effect of a WCAB decision. The Board further noted that execution of an award requires a certified copy, which is not issued during pending judicial review, but warned Zurich of potential penalties for non-payment.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationAttorney FeesPermanently Totally DisabledWrit of ReviewLabor Code § 5956Certified CopyCivil JudgmentLabor Code § 5814Penalty
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1987

McCaffrey v. Board of Estimate

The petitioners challenged a determination by the Board of Estimate of the City of New York, dated January 22, 1987, which approved a site in Long Island City for a residential shelter for homeless men. The Supreme Court, Queens County, denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the respondents complied with the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), City Environmental Quality Review regulations, and the Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP). The respondents had identified environmental concerns, taken a 'hard look,' and provided a 'reasoned elaboration' for their determination. The petitioners' argument that ULURP procedures needed to be redone due to an expired lease option was deemed without merit.

Environmental ReviewHomeless ShelterSite ApprovalLand UseCPLR Article 78SEQRAULURPGovernment DecisionAppellate CourtProcedural Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Broomfield v. Roosevelt Hotel Corp.

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision denying the employer’s request for full Board review. The employer had repeatedly failed to appear at hearings regarding a discrimination complaint filed by the claimant, leading the Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) to find discrimination. The employer’s subsequent untimely appeal to a Board panel was denied for lack of good cause. The employer then sought full Board review, which was also denied. The court affirmed the denial of full Board review, finding no abuse of discretion by the Board panel, as their decision was unanimous and based on a full consideration of the matter.

DiscriminationWorkers' Compensation BoardUntimely AppealFull Board ReviewAbuse of DiscretionAdjournmentsFailure to AppearJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionWCLJ Decision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,987 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