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
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
May 30, 1991

Bonilla v. New York City Civil Service Commission

In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenged a determination disqualifying him from a civil service eligible list for a sanitation worker position due to a psychiatric disorder. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the respondents' cross motion to dismiss the petition, citing the petitioner's failure to commence the proceeding before the eligible list expired. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, relying on established case law such as Matter of Deas v Levitt, which mandates dismissal if a challenge to an eligible list determination is not initiated prior to the list's expiration. This ruling emphasizes the procedural requirement for timely legal action concerning civil service eligible lists.

Civil Service LawEligible ListDisqualificationPsychiatric DisorderNervous BreakdownTimeliness of PetitionExpiration of Eligible ListProcedural DismissalJudicial ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Di Ponzio

The claimant was employed until June 20, 1993. On December 10, 1994, the U.S. Department of Labor issued a certificate making workers impacted by X-ray film imports eligible for trade readjustment allowances under the Trade Act of 1974. However, eligibility was specifically limited to workers separated from employment on or after July 11, 1993. The Board denied the claimant's request for an allowance because his separation date preceded this eligibility cutoff. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it to be supported by substantial evidence.

Trade Readjustment AllowancesEligibility CriteriaEmployment Separation DateTrade Act of 1974U.S. Department of LaborImport ImpactX-ray Film IndustryBoard DecisionSubstantial EvidenceAffirmed Decision
References
1
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 24190 [84 Misc 3d 497]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2024

Cartwright v. Kennedy

This case addresses a novel question regarding the appropriate venue for challenging an independent designating/nominating petition in an Election Law case, specifically for candidates seeking statewide office. Petitioners, led by Caroline Cartwright, sought to invalidate the nominating petition of Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. and Nicole Shanahan for President and Vice President, alleging fraud and false residency claims. Respondents-candidates moved to change venue from Dutchess County to Albany County, arguing Albany was the proper venue under CPLR 506 (b) and 22 NYCRR 202.64 (a) as the location where the New York State Board of Elections (NYSBOE) makes its determinations. The court determined that CPLR 506 (b) applied, and that "the material events" giving rise to the claims were the filing of the nominating petition and objections with NYSBOE in Albany, and NYSBOE's subsequent actions. Consequently, the court granted the respondents-candidates' motion, ordering the transfer of the case from Dutchess County to Albany County due to improper venue in Dutchess and proper venue in Albany.

Election Law DisputeVenue MotionNominating Petition ValidityCandidate Fraud AllegationsStatewide Political CampaignRobert F. Kennedy Jr. CandidacyNew York State Board of Elections JurisdictionCPLR Article 5Judicial ProcedureDutchess County Supreme Court
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 06, 1988

Gelin v. Perales

This case concerns an appeal by the Nassau County Commissioner of Social Services from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. The proceeding was initiated by Octoleme Gelin to compel compliance with determinations from the New York State Commissioner of Social Services, which had reversed denials of public assistance applications. The Supreme Court directed the local Commissioner to redetermine Gelin's financial eligibility and awarded attorney's fees. On appeal, the court found the local agency's contention of compliance meritless regarding eligibility determination. However, the appellate court ruled that the award of attorney's fees under 42 USC § 1988 was erroneous because the petitioner's federal claim, based on 45 CFR 205.10 (a) (16), was found to be insubstantial and failed the Gibbs test.

Public AssistanceAttorney's FeesCPLR Article 78Fair HearingSocial Services LawEligibility for BenefitsJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionFederal Constitutional ClaimState Constitutional Claim
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF THEROUX v. Reilly

The New York State Court of Appeals addressed whether eligibility for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c requires a 'heightened risk' standard for injuries sustained by municipal employees in law enforcement duties. The court concluded that section 207-c does not mandate such a standard, interpreting 'duties' to encompass the full range of a covered employee's job responsibilities. It clarified that eligibility only necessitates demonstrating a 'direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury.' Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division orders in three consolidated cases (Theroux v Reilly, Wagman v Kapica, and James v County of Yates Sheriff’s Dept.) that had erroneously applied the 'heightened risk' standard, reinstating Supreme Court orders in two and remitting one for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipJob DutiesPublic Safety Officers
References
20
Case No. 03-15-00374-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2015

Jamar Osborne v. Warren Kenneth Paxton

This is a statewide election contest where Green Party Candidate Jamar Osborne (Appellant) seeks to disqualify Warren Kenneth Paxton (Appellee), Republican Candidate for Texas Attorney General. Osborne argues that Paxton, as a licensed attorney and member of the State Bar of Texas, is a de facto member of the judiciary and therefore ineligible to serve as an executive officer under the separation of powers doctrine. The trial court, presided over by Judge Stephen Yelenosky, granted summary judgment in favor of Paxton. Osborne also asserts that Paxton's oath of office was administered improperly before the legislative session began, preventing the Speaker of the House from declaring him constitutionally eligible. Osborne is appealing the district court's decision to grant summary judgment without allowing for discovery and without Paxton presenting evidence, and seeks a reversal and remand of the judgment.

Election contestSeparation of powersSummary judgment appealJudicial eligibilityAttorney GeneralTexas ConstitutionSui JurisAppellate procedureDiscoveryGovernment ethics
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Panio v. Sunderland

This case concerns appeals related to the validity of absentee and affidavit ballots from the November 2, 2004 general election for the 35th State Senatorial District, contested between Republican candidate Nicholas Spano and Democratic candidate Andrea Stewart-Cousins. The court modified the Appellate Division's order, ruling that 163 affidavit ballots cast in the correct polling site but wrong election district, 45 absentee ballots by poll workers, and 20 affidavit ballots with missing election district information, all due to ministerial errors by the Board of Elections, must be counted. Conversely, 457 affidavit ballots cast at the wrong polling place and three affidavit ballots where votes were already recorded for those voters were properly excluded. The decision emphasizes balancing statutory duties with voter rights, ensuring that ministerial errors do not disenfranchise eligible voters.

election lawballot validityaffidavit ballotsabsentee ballotsministerial errorvoter disenfranchisementpolling siteelection districtNew York State Senateelection dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernard v. Local 100, Transport Workers Union

The plaintiffs, Carlyle Bernard and John Simino, members of Local 100, Transport Workers Union of America, sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their union from barring Bernard's candidacy for Recording Secretary. Bernard was disqualified due to a union bylaw requiring minimum meeting attendance, which he could not meet due to his work schedule. The plaintiffs argued that this rule was an unreasonable restriction on candidate eligibility under Title I of the LMRDA, thereby denying members equal rights to nominate and vote. The Court denied the preliminary injunction, stating that the plaintiffs failed to show irreparable harm or a likelihood of success on the merits. The decision highlighted that Title I primarily addresses direct discrimination in voting rights, not challenges to uniformly applied eligibility requirements, which are typically governed by Title IV's post-election enforcement by the Secretary of Labor. The Court also suggested the plaintiffs exhaust internal union remedies.

Union ElectionsLMRDA Title ILMRDA Title IVCandidate EligibilityMeeting Attendance RulesPreliminary InjunctionEqual RightsUnion BylawsInternal Union RemediesJudicial Review
References
22
Showing 1-10 of 628 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