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

Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC v. Calderia

The case involves a special proceeding initiated by Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC to obtain a turnover order for funds held in a joint bank account of judgment debtor Lizette M. Calderia and Genoveva Castillo at JPMorgan Chase Bank. A key legal question was the applicability of CPLR article 52 amendments, effective January 1, 2009, which introduce new protections for judgment debtors, to proceedings commenced prior to but heard after this effective date. The court ruled that CPLR 5232 (e), concerning execution exemptions, applies retroactively due to its remedial nature, while provisions for restraining notices (CPLR 5222-a, 5222 [i]) do not. Given the judgment debtors' default, the court determined that a hearing is necessary to assess whether the statutorily exempt amount is genuinely required for the judgment debtor's reasonable needs and those of her dependents. The decision directs that if the judgment debtors default at the hearing, all funds in the account will be made available to the judgment creditor.

Turnover OrderJudgment DebtorExemption LawsCPLR Article 52Retroactivity of StatutesJoint Bank AccountRestraining NoticeExecution of JudgmentSpecial ProceedingStatutory Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

North Shore University Hospital v. Citibank Legal Service Intake Unit

North Shore University Hospital at Plainview (NSUHP) initiated a special proceeding seeking a turnover order to satisfy a $5,262.24 judgment against Kim Miscioscia, whose bank account was jointly held with Loretta H. LaRosa at Citibank. NSUHP failed to comply with CPLR 5222-a by not serving an exemption notice and claim forms with its restraining notice, and by commencing the turnover proceeding before the judgment debtor's 20-day period to claim exemptions had expired. The court ruled that judgment creditors must plead and prove compliance with CPLR 5222-a and the expiration of the exemption claim period before initiating a turnover proceeding. Consequently, the special proceeding was dismissed without prejudice, with leave for NSUHP to refile upon proper compliance.

Turnover OrderJudgment EnforcementCPLR 5222-aExemption NoticeRestraining NoticeJudgment Debtor RightsSpecial ProceedingBank AccountDismissal Without PrejudiceNew York Civil Practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 1997

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) filed a class action grievance against the County of Nassau on behalf of five Construction Inspector Trainees whose employment was terminated in violation of a collective bargaining agreement. An advisory arbitrator recommended in favor of the CSEA, but the County Executive overturned this decision. CSEA and the individual employees then initiated proceedings under CPLR articles 75 and 78, and sought damages for breach of contract. The Supreme Court dismissed the CPLR proceedings and individual breach of contract claims, while allowing CSEA to pursue its breach of contract claim. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the advisory arbitrator's recommendation was not binding and that CPLR article 78 was not the proper vehicle to resolve contractual rights.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceAdvisory ArbitrationCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Breach of ContractPublic EmployeesEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewNassau County
References
5
Case No. 680/2025
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 07, 2025

Matter of Hans-Gaston v. Sunshine

This Article 78 special proceeding concerns a challenge by Petitioner Principal Hans-Gaston against the Kings County Clerk's protocol for processing applications to remove actions from lower courts to the Supreme Court. The Petitioner argued that the Clerk improperly required the commencement of a new special proceeding or action for motions made pursuant to CPLR 325(b), which mandates that such applications be made by motion. The Court meticulously analyzed the distinctions between motions and special proceedings, emphasizing that a special proceeding requires explicit statutory authorization, which is absent for CPLR 325(b) motions. The decision concludes that the County Clerk's protocol is improper and contrary to law. Consequently, the Court granted the petition in part, directing the Respondent to accept properly filed CPLR 325(b) motions without compelling the initiation of a new special proceeding or action.

CPLR Article 78MandamusMinisterial DutySpecial ProceedingMotion PracticeCase RemovalCourt JurisdictionCounty Clerk ProtocolCivil ProcedureStatutory Interpretation
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Falzone & New York Mutual Fire Insurance

This CPLR article 75 proceeding addresses whether a supplementary uninsured/underinsured motorist (SUM) arbitrator exceeded their authority by not giving preclusive effect to a prior no-fault arbitration award. Petitioner, having secured a no-fault award for a shoulder injury after a car collision, subsequently sought SUM benefits. The SUM arbitrator denied benefits, finding the injury unrelated, contradicting the no-fault decision. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 75 proceeding, arguing collateral estoppel, but the Appellate Division confirmed the SUM award. The Court of Appeals affirmed, reiterating that arbitrators' legal errors, including those concerning collateral estoppel, are generally not subject to judicial review unless they violate strong public policy, are irrational, or exceed explicit limitations on authority.

arbitrationcollateral estoppelres judicataSUM benefitsno-fault benefitsCPLR Article 75judicial reviewarbitrator's authorityappellate reviewcausation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. Isaacson, Robustelli, Fox, Fine, Greco & Fogelgaren, P. C.

Plaintiff Karl Davis sued attorney Bernard A. Kuttner for legal malpractice, alleging failure to pursue certain claims after a workplace injury in 1989. Kuttner moved to dismiss the lawsuit, arguing that the action was barred by the recently amended CPLR 214 (6), which shortened the statute of limitations for non-medical malpractice to three years and would have rendered Davis's claims, which accrued in 1991, time-barred by his 1997 filing against Kuttner. The court denied Kuttner's motion, ruling that applying the amended CPLR 214 (6) in this instance would unconstitutionally deprive the plaintiff of a reasonable time to bring suit, as the claims would have been immediately barred upon the amendment's effective date without legislative provision for a grace period. Consequently, the court held that the six-year statute of limitations previously in force applied, deeming Davis's claims timely.

Legal MalpracticeStatute of LimitationsCPLR 214 (6) AmendmentConstitutional LawDue ProcessRetroactivity of LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimNegligenceWorkplace InjuryMotion to Dismiss
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lubrano v. New York State Workers' Compensation Board

This case concerns a proceeding initiated by petitioners under CPLR article 78 to prevent the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board from issuing money judgments. The petitioners sought to enjoin the board until they were granted a full fact-finding hearing, challenging the board's determination that they failed to make compensation payments. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, initially ruled in favor of the petitioners, vacating existing judgments and directing the board to provide a hearing. However, the Workers' Compensation Board appealed this decision. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's judgment and dismissed the proceeding. The appellate court held that the Appellate Division, Third Judicial Department, has exclusive jurisdiction over matters reviewable by it, thereby precluding recourse to a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Any claims of procedural due process failures in administrative decisions, according to the court, are exclusively for the appellate court to resolve.

CPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardJurisdictionAppellate ReviewProcedural Due ProcessInjunctionMoney JudgmentsAdministrative DecisionSuffolk County Supreme CourtThird Judicial Department
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2008

Barresi v. County of Suffolk

The petitioner appealed an order and judgment dismissing their CPLR article 78 proceeding, which sought to compel a determination regarding back pay and sick leave benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. The initial claim was denied in 1992, and review was postponed until a worker's compensation decision in 2001. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dismissed the petition based on the statute of limitations and the doctrine of laches, as the petitioner failed to make a timely demand for GML § 207-c benefits after the worker's compensation decision. The appellate court affirmed the dismissal, holding that the CPLR article 78 proceeding was untimely, as the statute of limitations expired even considering later correspondence as a demand and denial, and subsequent requests for reconsideration did not revive the claim.

CPLR Article 78MandamusBack PaySick Leave BenefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cStatute of LimitationsLachesWorker's Compensation ClaimAppeal DismissalGovernment Benefits
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Catlin v. Orleans County Highway Department

Petitioner was discharged from his employment as a maintenance equipment operator for the Orleans County Highway Department after testing positive for marihuana during a random drug test. He initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, contending that the penalty was arbitrary and capricious, an abuse of discretion, and that he was denied due process due to inadequate notice of the consequences of a positive drug test. The court rejected these contentions, finding that he had received mandatory training and notice regarding the drug policy. The court upheld the dismissal, concluding that the severe penalty was not disproportionate to the offense, especially given his duties operating heavy equipment near others and the public.

Drug TestingPublic EmploymentCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Employment TerminationArbitrary and CapriciousDue ProcessPenalty ProportionalityOrleans CountyHeavy Equipment Operator
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cox v. Carey

The petitioner, a probationary cook, was terminated by the New York Department of Correctional Services despite a prior Human Rights Division ruling in her favor regarding sex discrimination in hiring. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge this termination, alleging it was arbitrary and capricious. However, respondents sought dismissal, arguing that the petitioner had not exhausted her administrative remedies, having also filed a second complaint with the State Human Rights Division concerning the termination. The court, presided over by Judge Aaron E. Klein, granted the respondents' motion, dismissing the petition. The judge ruled that the petitioner's allegations could be adequately reviewed through the ongoing Human Rights Division proceedings, emphasizing the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.

Article 78Probationary EmployeeEmployment TerminationAdministrative RemediesExhaustion DoctrineCivil Service LawHuman Rights DivisionJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious ActionPublic Employment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,055 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