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. 07 Civ. 2265
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 21, 2008

MM Ex Rel. AM v. NY. CITY DEPT. OF EDUC. REG.

This case involves M.M. and H.M., parents of A.M., an autistic child, appealing administrative decisions regarding A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). The plaintiffs sought a modified de novo review, alleging procedural and substantive violations by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). The court denied the plaintiffs' motion and granted the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment, upholding the administrative findings that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). Additionally, the court concluded that A.M. was not entitled to reimbursement for private school placement or continued early intervention services during the pendency of the dispute.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesState Review OfficerImpartial Hearing OfficerAutism Spectrum DisorderSpecial EducationPendency ProvisionTuition Reimbursement
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 31, 2007

M.M. ex rel. A.M. v. New York City Department of Education Region 9

Parents M.M. and H.M. sought a modified de novo review of administrative decisions concerning their autistic daughter A.M.'s Individualized Education Plan (IEP) for the 2005-2006 school year, provided by the New York City Department of Education (DOE). They alleged procedural and substantive violations of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), claiming the IEP was inadequate and requesting tuition reimbursement for their unilateral private school placement. The Impartial Hearing Officer and State Review Officer had previously found the DOE's IEP appropriate and denied reimbursement. The District Court affirmed these administrative decisions, concluding that the DOE offered a Free Appropriate Public Education (FAPE) to A.M. and that the IDEA's pendency provision did not entitle the student to continued early intervention services during the dispute. Consequently, the plaintiffs' motion for reversal was denied, and the DOE's cross-motion for summary judgment was granted.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Education PlanEarly Intervention ServicesSpecial EducationAutismDue ProcessTuition ReimbursementSummary JudgmentDe Novo Review
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 22, 1982

In re the Arbitration between Board of Education of Connetquot Central School District & Connetquot Teachers Ass'n

This dissenting opinion argues for affirming a Special Term's order directing a board of education to arbitrate a grievance filed by a teachers union. The union's claim involves continued use of office space in school district buildings, citing a collective bargaining agreement and past practice. The dissent contends that the arbitration clause is broad and encompasses the dispute, rejecting the employer's argument that law or public policy (specifically Education Law § 414 or Civil Service Law § 209-a) prohibits arbitration of this grievance. Justice O'Connor asserts that the union's use of office space for its statutory duties as a collective bargaining agent serves a "school purpose," similar to administrative and support services, and thus is not excluded by Education Law § 414. The dissent concludes that the order compelling arbitration should be affirmed.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceTeachers UnionBoard of EducationOffice SpaceSchool PropertyEducation LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board
References
15
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00945 [213 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Clarke v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of petitions challenging the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Petitioners, employees placed on leave without pay for non-compliance, had sought to annul the DOE's determinations and vacate an arbitration award. The court found that the vaccine mandate was a valid qualification of employment, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, and therefore did not constitute disciplinary action. Furthermore, it ruled that the arbitrator's authority stemmed from the Civil Service Law, not the collective bargaining agreement or Education Law, and petitioners lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award. The court also determined that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, as they were offered opportunities for exemptions and accommodations.

COVID-19 vaccine mandateleave without payCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78arbitration awardpublic policy violationdue process rightsemployment qualificationteacher disciplineCivil Service Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Board of Education of Watertown City School District & Watertown Education Ass'n

This case consolidates two appeals, 'The Watertown Dispute' and 'The Indian River Dispute,' concerning public sector arbitration under New York's Taylor Law. Both cases involve education associations and school districts in disputes over changes to health insurance benefits, specifically increased employee copayments. The associations filed grievances, which the districts denied, leading to demands for arbitration. Lower courts granted stays of arbitration, applying the 'Liverpool two-step' protocol and finding the disputes non-arbitrable. The Court of Appeals reverses these decisions, clarifying that the 'Liverpool' protocol should be applied without an anti-arbitrational presumption. The Court emphasizes that the merits of a grievance are for the arbitrator, and a court's role is merely to determine if there's a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the collective bargaining agreement. Finding that health insurance benefits are clearly related to the CBAs, the Court compels arbitration in both cases.

Public Sector ArbitrationTaylor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ArbitrabilityHealth Insurance BenefitsCopayment IncreasesLiverpool Two-Step ProtocolJudicial Review of ArbitrationPresumption of ArbitrabilityCourt of Appeals (NY)
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 19, 2002

Baker v. Board of Education

This case involves an appeal from an order denying defendants' motions to dismiss a complaint filed by 11 former teachers from the Hoosick Falls Central School District. The teachers retired between 1999 and 2001, prior to a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) being finalized in May 2001. This CBA included retroactive 5% salary raises for current employees, but excluded retirees. The plaintiffs subsequently sued the Board of Education, the Teachers Association, and the Superintendent, alleging a breach of the union's duty of fair representation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the action was timely, the plaintiffs had standing, and the Teachers Association had a continuing duty to represent the former employees in negotiations concerning terms retroactively applied to their period of active employment.

Duty of Fair RepresentationCollective Bargaining AgreementRetiree BenefitsRetroactive PayUnion RepresentationPublic EmployeesStatute of LimitationsStandingBreach of DutyGrievance Process
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dash v. Board of Education

The plaintiff, an African American male assistant principal, sued the Board of Education of the City School District of New York under Title VII, alleging a hostile work environment based on race and gender, disparate treatment, and retaliation. He detailed numerous sexually explicit remarks and actions by the Principal and other staff, as well as discriminatory treatment in work assignments and opportunities from 2008 to 2013. The defendant moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were time-barred or waived by a previous settlement. The court denied summary judgment, finding that the hostile work environment claim qualified under the continuing violations doctrine, allowing consideration of acts prior to the 300-day limit. The court also ruled the settlement waiver did not bar the Title VII discrimination claim as it pertained to specific disciplinary charges, not general discrimination. The court determined there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the severity and pervasiveness of the harassment and whether the conduct could be imputed to the employer, making it appropriate for a jury to decide.

Hostile Work EnvironmentTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentSummary JudgmentContinuing Violation DoctrineWaiver and ReleaseEmployment LawEducation Law
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lederman v. Board of Education

The case involves plaintiffs moving to punish the Board of Education and Superintendent William Jansen for contempt of court, alleging violation of a 1949 judgment by Mr. Justice Hearit. The previous judgment declared parts of the Feinberg Law (Civil Service Law § 12a, Education Law § 3022, and Board of Regents' Rules § 254) null and unconstitutional, enjoining the Board from enforcing them. Dr. Jansen later questioned a teacher about Communist party membership, claiming authority under Education Law § 2523, not the Feinberg Law. The court, presided over by Justice Beldook, found no subterfuge and concluded that the inquiry was instituted independently of the invalidated Feinberg Law. The court determined that adjudicating the legality of the inquiry under Education Law § 2523 was beyond the scope of this contempt motion and found that the plaintiffs failed to prove a violation of the December 16, 1949 judgment. The motion for contempt was denied.

Contempt of CourtFeinberg LawTeacher Loyalty OathsCommunist Party AffiliationDue ProcessFirst Amendment RightsGovernment EmploymentInvestigatory PowersPublic School TeachersStatutory Construction
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalter v. Board of Cooperative Educational Services

Plaintiff James D. Stalter, Jr. sued the Board of Cooperative Educational Services of Rockland County (BOCES) under the Americans with Disabilities Act and New York Executive Law, alleging discrimination due to his cerebral palsy and speech impediment. BOCES moved for summary judgment, arguing Stalter was not disabled, did not suffer an adverse employment decision, and his claims were untimely filed with the EEOC. The District Court, presided over by Judge McMahon, denied BOCES's motion, finding genuine issues of material fact on all key arguments. The court determined that Stalter's inability to speak constituted a substantial limitation of a major life activity, and there was sufficient evidence that BOCES regarded him as disabled. Furthermore, the court found factual disputes regarding whether Stalter was denied overtime and a shift change, and if the continuing violation doctrine or equitable tolling applied to his EEOC complaint's timeliness.

Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Disability DiscriminationSummary JudgmentCerebral PalsySpeech ImpairmentEmployment DiscriminationAdverse Employment ActionEEOCStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 2014

B.K. v. New York City Department of Education

G.K., a child diagnosed with Autism Spectrum Disorder, faced educational challenges for the 2011-2012 school year. His parents, B.K. and Y.K., initiated legal action against the New York City Department of Education, alleging that the Department failed to provide G.K. with a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) as mandated by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA). The parents sought tuition reimbursement for G.K.'s private special education program and direct funding for home-based therapy, appealing an administrative decision that had previously denied their claims. The Department subsequently filed a cross-motion for summary judgment. The District Court, after conducting an independent review of the administrative record and giving due weight to the state administrative proceedings, denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Department's cross-motion, concluding that the May 2011 Individualized Education Program (IEP) proposed by the Department was procedurally and substantively adequate.

Individualized Education ProgramFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividuals with Disabilities Education ActAutism Spectrum DisorderSpecial EducationTuition ReimbursementDue Process HearingBehavioral Intervention PlanFunctional Behavioral AssessmentParental Participation
References
46
Showing 1-10 of 1,868 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