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

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
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Perduyn v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The petitioner, represented by his Union, was found guilty of serious misconduct after a hearing before a single arbitrator, despite a collective bargaining agreement provision for three. The Supreme Court dismissed his CPLR article 75 proceeding to vacate the arbitration award, ruling that the petitioner lacked standing to assert an individual claim against the employer and his sole remedy was a plenary action against the Union for breach of its duty of fair representation. A concurring opinion by Asch, J., discusses the evolution of contract law, highlighting the shift from individual to collective bargaining and raising questions about judicial checks on power abuse by associations regarding their members. The opinion also notes the admission of extensive evidence concerning a 'Black Hand' terror campaign during the arbitration hearing.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75Individual ClaimStandingDuty of Fair RepresentationContract LawUnion
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 21, 1993

Foust v. Village of Port Chester

The petitioner, a sanitation worker employed by the Village of Port Chester, was terminated for 17 unexcused absences between January 1992 and January 1993. A Hearing Officer recommended termination, which the Board of Trustees of the Village of Port Chester confirmed following a post-termination hearing. The petitioner sought review of this determination under CPLR article 78 and Civil Service Law § 75. The court found that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and that the termination was not disproportionate to the offense. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the proceeding was dismissed on the merits.

Termination of employmentUnexcused absencesArticle 78 proceedingCivil Service LawSubstantial evidenceDisproportionate penaltyAppellate reviewVillage of Port ChesterSanitation workerPost-termination hearing
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Grasso & Grasso

This case involves appeals stemming from a CPLR article 75 proceeding concerning an arbitration award between family members, the Grassos. Initially, the Supreme Court partially vacated the arbitration award, which was later modified by the Appellate Division, reinstating a provision for an arbitration hearing to determine asset valuation. During these proceedings, petitioners successfully moved to hold Joseph F. Grasso Jr. in contempt for non-compliance, leading to a judgment against him. On appeal, the court determined that the Supreme Court should have vacated its judgment upon reconsideration, especially after the Appellate Division's decision to reinstate the arbitration provision. Consequently, the judgments against Grasso Jr. were vacated, and the matter of any final judgment was held in abeyance pending further arbitration to determine the value of Trans-American.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Contempt ProceedingJudgment VacationReconsideration MotionAppellate ReviewEstate LawFamily DisputeArbitration EnforcementOffsetting Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollman v. Fahey

The petitioner, a clerk typist, was terminated from her employment with the Albany County Social Services Department following an incident on June 16, 1983. After a reprimand, she became distressed and engaged in a physical altercation with Security Officer Diane Cioffi, resulting in Cioffi's injury. Petitioner was subsequently convicted of disorderly conduct. A Civil Service Law § 75 hearing found her guilty of disruption and assault, leading to dismissal. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenged the termination, citing inadequate findings, a biased hearing officer, lack of substantial evidence, and excessive punishment. The court confirmed the determination, affirming that the findings were adequate, no bias was shown, the decision was supported by substantial evidence, and dismissal was not unduly severe given the gravity of the misconduct.

Employment TerminationMisconductAssaultCPLR Article 78Civil Service LawAdministrative HearingJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessPanel Decision
References
5
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
Feb 25, 1993

Martin v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a permanent custodial worker, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a February 25, 1993, determination by the Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District. This determination found him guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from his position. The court confirmed the Board's determination, dismissing the petitioner's proceeding on the merits. The court ruled that Civil Service Law § 50 (4) did not bar the Board from terminating the petitioner for material misrepresentations on his employment applications, as the Board, as the employer, could bring charges under Civil Service Law § 75. Additionally, a Yonkers City Court report detailing the petitioner's criminal history was deemed properly admitted, and the Board's determination was found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Article 78 ProceedingMisconductDismissal from EmploymentMaterial MisrepresentationEmployment Application FraudCivil Service LawAdministrative HearingSubstantial EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceCriminal History Report
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 2,033 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