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
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

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

Sines v. Opportunities For Broome, Inc.

Petitioner, a foreman, was dismissed from employment by a not-for-profit corporation in December 1987 for alleged misconduct, including sleeping on the job. After exhausting internal grievance procedures, which upheld the dismissal in September 1988, petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement and back pay. The court determined that an article 78 proceeding was appropriate against the not-for-profit corporation. Petitioner challenged the termination on procedural grounds and argued the finding of just cause was arbitrary and the penalty disproportionate. The court found no merit in petitioner's procedural claims and concluded that the finding of just cause was not arbitrary and capricious, and the penalty was not disproportionately harsh. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

CPLR Article 78Employment TerminationGrievance ProcedureNot-for-Profit CorporationArbitrary and CapriciousJust CauseWorkplace MisconductSleeping on JobFailure to SuperviseDue Process
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Human Resources Administration v. Carey

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 petition in the nature of a writ of prohibition. The petitioner, the City Human Resources Administration (HRA), sought to vacate a Supreme Court order regarding defendant Delgado, who was charged with arson. Delgado was found by two psychiatrists to be an incapacitated person unable to stand trial due to a severe hearing defect. The lower court, misinterpreting CPL article 730, ruled that Delgado's physical incapacity did not fall under the statute and ordered his placement with HRA and the Department of Social Services. The appellate court granted the writ of prohibition, vacating the lower court's order for exceeding its jurisdiction. The court declared Delgado incompetent to stand trial *nunc pro tunc* and committed him to the custody of the New York State Commissioner of Mental Health, clarifying that CPL 730.10 broadly applies to any mental defect causing incapacity, regardless of its source. The decision emphasized that the statute does not distinguish between different sources of disability once a finding of incapacity is made.

Incompetency to Stand TrialWrit of ProhibitionMental IncapacityCriminal Procedure LawJurisdiction DisputeArson Third DegreeDue ProcessCommitment OrderAppellate ReviewPhysical Impairment
References
1
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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Davidson v. LaGrange Fire District

A firefighter (petitioner) injured in the line of duty received salary benefits but was denied medical benefits for therapy and knee surgery by her employer and its insurer. The petitioner sought coverage under General Municipal Law § 207-a directly from the LaGrange Fire District and Board of Fire Commissioners. Despite being advised to pursue the matter with the Workers’ Compensation Board, the petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel her employers to make a final determination on her medical benefit request. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition, citing a failure to exhaust administrative remedies with the WCB. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, clarifying that a municipal employer's obligations under General Municipal Law § 207-a are distinct from workers' compensation remedies and do not require prior exhaustion of WCB proceedings.

Firefighter injuryMedical benefitsGeneral Municipal Law § 207-aCPLR Article 78MandamusExhaustion of administrative remediesWorkers' Compensation BoardMunicipal employer liabilityKnee surgeryPhysical therapy
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crimmins v. Dennison

Petitioner, a convicted murderer serving an indeterminate sentence for second-degree murder in New York County, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the New York State Board of Parole's November 16, 2004 decision denying him parole release. The Board had previously denied parole in 2000 and 2002, citing his explanation of the crime and a perceived lack of understanding of his actions, despite his institutional adjustments. Petitioner contended that the Board's determination was an abuse of discretion, improperly focused on the underlying offense, and violated statutory procedures and due process by effectively resentencing him. Concurrently, the Respondent cross-moved for a change of venue from New York County to Albany or Cayuga County. The court denied both the petition and the cross-motion, ruling that New York County was the proper venue for the proceeding and upholding the Parole Board's decision as rational and within its discretion, thereby dismissing the proceeding.

Parole ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingMurder ConvictionParole DenialVenue DisputeJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawAbuse of DiscretionExecutive Law § 259-iCPLR 506(b)
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 1,821 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