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

New York City Housing Authority Tenant Selection Division v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that NYCHA discriminated against Constance Orlando, a mentally disabled public housing applicant. The court found insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claim. While acknowledging that denying housing solely based on mental disability is unlawful, the court determined that NYCHA denied Orlando's application due to a valid reason: her persistent disruptive, harassing, and threatening behavior, which made her an undesirable tenant according to housing regulations. Consequently, the court granted NYCHA's petition, annulled the Appeal Board's order, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationMental DisabilityPublic HousingTenant EligibilityUndesirable TenantExecutive LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative OrderDisruptive BehaviorHarassment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Louchheim v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioners appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which had denied their CPLR article 78 petition. The petition aimed to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton, dated October 20, 2005. The ZBA's determination had granted NL Housing, LLC, a variance for the enlargement of two structures that served as a labor camp for migrant workers, benefiting from a preexisting nonconforming use. The petitioners argued that this variance violated Southampton Code § 330-167 (B) (1) (a), also known as the 50% rule, which limits nonconforming use expansion to 50% of the floor area as measured from when the use first became nonconforming in 1957. The Appellate Court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, granted the petition, annulled the ZBA's determination, and denied the application for the variance, finding that the ZBA had incorrectly interpreted the zoning ordinance.

ZoningVarianceNonconforming UseMigrant HousingZoning Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation50% RuleSuffolk County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Howard v. New York Times

This case concerns a motion seeking leave to appeal from an Appellate Division order, which had affirmed a Workers' Compensation Board determination. The Board's determination denied an application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The motion for leave to appeal, insofar as it pertained to the Board's denial of reconsideration, was dismissed on the grounds that this portion of the order did not constitute a final determination within the meaning of the Constitution. The remaining aspects of the motion for leave to appeal were denied.

Motion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate ReviewWorkers' CompensationBoard ReviewReconsiderationJurisdictionFinality of OrderConstitutional LawDismissal
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bromley v. Rich Aluminum & Vinyl Siding, Inc.

Claimant, a sales manager for a vinyl siding company, allegedly injured his left knee in 2001 while inspecting a customer's roof. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge disallowed his claim, citing lack of credibility, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board in April 2003. No appeal was taken from that initial Board decision. Claimant subsequently applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review of the April 2003 decision, which was denied in May 2004. This appeal was limited to reviewing the denial of the application for reconsideration, not the merits of the underlying 2003 Board decision. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, finding it was not arbitrary or capricious, as the Board had discretion to reject a coworker's recanted affidavit as not credible.

Appellate ReviewReconsideration DenialBoard ReviewCredibility AssessmentAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentJudicial DiscretionAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousRecanted Testimony
References
6
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 22, 2004

Claim of Marks v. Evergreen Country Club

Claimant, an office manager with Evergreen Country Club, sought workers' compensation benefits alleging harmful exposure to fumes and materials at work, which led to a temporary aggravation of pre-existing asthma. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found no further causally related disability. After the case was remitted for further review, including deposition testimony from a treating physician, the original decision was reinstated and subsequently upheld by the Board. The claimant appealed the Board's denial of her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review. The court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the denial was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, as the claimant had not presented any new evidence.

Workers' CompensationAsthmaOccupational DiseaseReconsiderationFull Board ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionArbitrary and CapriciousCausally Related DisabilityPre-existing Condition
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Chukwunenye Onuoha v. BJs Club 165

Claimant sustained a work-related head injury in April 2010, subsequently amended to include depressive disorder. The employer and its carrier controverted the claim, leading a WCLJ to find no further causally related disability after December 15, 2012, a decision affirmed by the Workers’ Compensation Board on November 7, 2014. The Board later denied the claimant's request for reconsideration and/or full Board review on February 6, 2015. This appeal concerns that denial, with the court affirming the Board's decision. The appellate court limited its review to whether the Board's denial was arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion, and concluded that it was not, upholding the Board's discretion in assessing medical testimony.

Workers' CompensationAppealReconsiderationFull Board ReviewCausal RelationshipDepressive DisorderMedical EvidenceCredibilityAbuse of DiscretionAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 30, 1998

Claim of Devivo v. Sizzler Restaurant

Claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for a back and arm injury from a slip and fall at work in 1993. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge allowed the claim, but a Board panel later reversed, finding no credible evidence the accident arose out of or in the course of employment. Claimant's subsequent request for full Board review was denied. Her appeal was dismissed due to being filed beyond the statutory period. The court affirmed the Board's decision, noting the record contained substantial evidence to support the Board's finding against the claimant, especially given inconsistencies in her account. The denial of full Board review was also deemed appropriate as the 'newly discovered evidence' was not genuinely new.

workers' compensation benefitsslip and fall injurycausal relationshipemployment accidentBoard panel reversalfull Board reviewappeal dismissalstatutory time periodnewly discovered evidenceevidentiary inconsistencies
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frangella Mushroom Farms, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

The petitioner, who operates a mushroom growing farm in the Town of Coeymans, sought a special use permit to construct an apartment building for its migrant laborers. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, citing concerns related to aesthetic harmony, property values, safety, and traffic. However, the court found the Board's 17 specific findings to be arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient evidence in the record. The court determined that the proposed housing would not adversely affect the district and would replace existing substandard dwellings without increasing population or traffic. Consequently, the court annulled the Board's determination and mandated the issuance of the special use permit.

Zoning OrdinanceSpecial Use PermitArbitrary and CapriciousLand Use PlanningMigrant HousingAgricultural OperationsJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Town of CoeymansAlbany County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Regan v. City of Hornell Police Department

The case concerns an appeal from decisions of the Workers’ Compensation Board regarding a claimant, a former law enforcement officer for the City of Hornell Police Department (HPD), who sought benefits for PTSD and depression attributed to his participation in World Trade Center rescue operations in September 2001. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found an occupational disease with the City of Geneva Police Department (GPD) as the employer. The Board reversed, finding an accidental injury with HPD and applying Workers’ Compensation Law article 8-A. HPD and its carrier appealed, challenging the application of Article 8-A and the causal relationship. The court affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that the claimant's perimeter containment and transport activities at the WTC site constituted participation in rescue operations, and upheld the Board's finding of a causal relationship. The court also affirmed the denial of full Board review.

Workers' CompensationWorld Trade CenterPTSDDepressionAccidental InjuryOccupational DiseaseRescue OperationsLaw EnforcementAppellate ReviewBoard Review
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 28,928 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