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

Graham v. Bowen

This case involves a challenge by mothers, on behalf of their dependent children, to the suspension of Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) benefits. The suspensions occurred after individual household members received lump-sum personal injury awards, leading to ineligibility for AFDC. Plaintiffs initially alleged violations of AFDC enactment and equal protection. After the Supreme Court's ruling in Lyng v. International Union, UAW, which upheld a similar government program against an equal protection challenge, defendants moved to dismiss. Plaintiffs then sought to amend their complaint to add a bill of attainder claim. The District Court granted the motion to amend but subsequently granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the entire Amended Complaint. The court found that the equal protection claim was dispositive under Lyng, stating that AFDC provisions do not violate the Fourteenth or Fifth Amendments. It also ruled that New York's regulations regarding lump-sum income were permissible under federal law, as states have the option to define "unavailability" of income. Finally, the bill of attainder claim was dismissed, as the suspension of benefits was deemed non-punitive and rationally related to the government's legitimate interest in fiscally managing the AFDC program.

AFDC benefitsequal protection clausebill of attainderlump-sum incomewelfare reformstatutory interpretationfederal programsstate regulationsdismissal of complaintsocial services
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 142 SSM 33
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2017

The Matter of the Claim of Lidia Burgos v. Citywide Central Insurance Program

The New York Court of Appeals affirmed the order of the Appellate Division. The decision concerned the claim of Lidia Burgos against Citywide Central Insurance Program and the Workers' Compensation Board. The Appellate Division had concluded that substantial evidence supported the Workers' Compensation Board's determinations regarding the claimant's degree of impairment and loss of wage-earning capacity. The Court of Appeals found no reason to overturn this conclusion.

Workers' CompensationImpairmentWage-earning CapacitySubstantial EvidenceAppellate DivisionClaimantInsurance ProgramBoard DeterminationJudicial ReviewAffirmed Order
References
1
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lugo v. Gaines

This dissenting opinion concerns a petitioner's request for review of a determination terminating his participation in a temporary release program and for monetary damages. The petitioner, an inmate, was removed from the program after a urine sample tested positive for cocaine. The dissent argues that the procedures followed, despite a lack of formal chain of custody documentation, did not violate the petitioner's due process rights, as strict rules of evidence are not required in such disciplinary proceedings. Citing judicial precedent, the dissenting judges emphasize that an inmate's constitutional protections are diminished by institutional needs. Therefore, they would affirm the termination of the petitioner's work release program.

temporary release programdrug testingdue processinmate rightscorrectional facilitiesadministrative hearingchain of custodyurine analysisArticle 78State liability
References
8
Case No. 2007 NY Slip Op 31662(U)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 26, 2007

J Squared Software, LLC v. Bernette Knitware Corp.

The Supreme Court of New York County issued a judgment on July 26, 2007, affirming a prior order from June 18, 2007. This order had denied the plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on liability, granted the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint in an action for conversion of a software program, and vacated a preliminary injunction. The appellate court unanimously affirmed this decision, holding that the plaintiff lacked a cause of action for conversion as the program was obtained under a valid contract and its return was never demanded. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was properly vacated upon the dismissal of the complaint.

conversionsoftware programsummary judgmentpreliminary injunctioncontract lawlicenseecause of actionappellate reviewjudgment affirmedcomplaint dismissal
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1976

In re the Claim of Phelosof

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed the Industrial Commissioner's determination that the claimant was ineligible for benefits under the Federal Special Unemployment Assistance Program (SUA). The claimant, who was terminated from employment by Monroe County, was receiving benefits under the New York State Labor Law based on prior covered employment. The Board denied SUA benefits, reasoning that eligibility for State benefits precluded eligibility for SUA, as the Federal program is intended for those not otherwise eligible for unemployment allowances under any other law. The court affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that SUA is not a substitute for minimum wage law or an economic floor, and eligibility under State law disqualifies one from SUA benefits.

Unemployment BenefitsFederal Special Unemployment Assistance ProgramEligibility CriteriaNew York State Labor LawCovered EmploymentUncovered EmploymentUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardIndustrial CommissionerAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hellman v. Program Printing, Inc.

This case involves a petition to confirm and enforce an arbitration award stemming from a labor dispute. The petitioner union accused Program Printing of violating a collective bargaining agreement by transferring work, leading to a layoff. An arbitrator found in favor of the union, ordering the company to cease work transfer and reinstate the employee with back pay. Although the employee was initially reinstated, he was not rehired the following season, prompting the union to seek court intervention. The court confirmed the original arbitration award but denied the request for enforcement, concluding that the new dispute regarding the employee's re-employment due to alleged changed circumstances should be resolved through further arbitration.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor DisputeWork TransferEmployee LayoffReinstatementCourt JurisdictionArbitration EnforcementArbitration ConfirmationFederal Courts
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 714 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