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

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
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. 2019 NY Slip Op 05744 [174 AD3d 1206]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME AFL-CIO v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The case involves Jarred Sansky, a probationary employee, terminated from his position as Cadet Leader 1 by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Petitioners, including Sansky and the Civil Service Employees Association, challenged the termination under CPLR article 78, arguing Sansky had completed his probationary term and was dismissed in bad faith or retaliation for reporting neglect. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding Sansky was still probationary and petitioners failed to prove bad faith or retaliation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the dismissal, holding that Sansky's temporary service in a higher position did not automatically count towards his probationary period and that allegations of bad faith or retaliation were unsupported by evidence. Therefore, Sansky, as a probationary employee, was not entitled to a pretermination hearing.

probationary employmentterminationCPLR article 78bad faith dismissalretaliationcivil service lawtemporary appointmentprovisional appointmentNew York State Office of Children and Family ServicesCadet Leader
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mirkin & Gordon, P. C. v. Suffolk County-Local 852 Civil Service Employees Ass'n Legal Services Fund

This case involves an appeal by the Legal Services Fund (defendant) from an order denying its motion to dismiss a breach of contract complaint filed by a law firm (plaintiff). The plaintiff law firm sued the Legal Services Fund for breach of retainer agreements and non-payment for services. The defendant sought dismissal based on res judicata, arguing that a prior federal lawsuit, which was dismissed on the merits, barred the state action. The federal action, filed by the plaintiff law firm against county legislators and welfare fund trustees, alleged a conspiracy to violate constitutional rights under 42 USC § 1983 by terminating their retainer. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied the dismissal motion. This appellate decision affirms that denial, concluding that res judicata does not apply because the parties and claims in the federal and state actions were not identical, and the federal court lacked jurisdiction over the contract claims against the Legal Services Fund.

Breach of ContractRes JudicataClaim PreclusionFederal Court JurisdictionState Court ActionDismissalAppellate ReviewCivil Rights (42 USC § 1983)Legal ServicesLaw Firm Retainer
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jenkins v. Arcade Building Maintenance

Jenkins, an African American woman, sued her former employer and several individuals and entities (Initial Contract Serviced, Petar Dedovic, Argirre Lolovic, Arcade Building Maintenance, and Local 32B-32J Service Employees International Union) for alleged discrimination based on race, color, national origin, and gender, and retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985. She claimed harassment and wrongful termination after filing a discrimination complaint in 1993. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, dismissing the § 1981 claims for lack of specific allegations of racial animus and finding gender discrimination not actionable under § 1981. It also dismissed the § 1985 conspiracy claim, ruling that a § 1981 employment discrimination claim cannot serve as its basis. The court further determined that events prior to May 1, 1995, were time-barred and the continuing violation doctrine did not apply due to conclusory allegations. Jenkins was granted leave to replead her First and Second Claims for Relief.

DiscriminationRetaliationConspiracy42 U.S.C. § 198142 U.S.C. § 1985Employment LawMotion to DismissStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineRacial Discrimination
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2011

County of Rockland v. Civil Service Employee Ass'n

The County of Rockland initiated a proceeding under CPLR article 75 to permanently stay arbitration sought by the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO. The grievances arose from the County's alleged violation of a collective bargaining agreement by assigning per diem employees instead of regular full- and part-time staff. The Supreme Court granted the County's petition, permanently staying the arbitration. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, denying the petition and dismissing the proceeding. The court found no statutory, constitutional, or public policy prohibition against arbitration of the grievances and determined that the parties' collective bargaining agreement covered the specific dispute. Furthermore, the issue of the timeliness of the arbitration demands was deemed to be a matter for the arbitrator to decide.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementCPLR article 75grievancepublic sectorPERBCivil Service Lawemployer practicesappellate reviewlabour law
References
7
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
Oct 17, 1990

Claim of Weingarten v. XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc.

This case addresses whether a claimant, a shareholder and participating limousine driver for XYZ Two Way Radio Service, Inc., qualifies as an employee eligible for workers' compensation benefits. The corporation, which provides dispatch services, requires drivers to purchase shares and own their limousines, covering personal expenses. While drivers have flexible hours, they are obligated to accept "voucher fares" assigned by the corporation, with penalties for refusal, and the corporation manages these payments. Initially, a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found no employer-employee relationship, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, concluding an employer-employee relationship existed due to the corporation's significant control over the voucher fare system and the claimant's dependence on the corporation for business. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding sufficient evidence of control to support the finding of an employer-employee relationship.

employer-employee relationshipworkers' compensationlimousine driverindependent contractorcontrol testshareholderdispatch servicesvoucher faresadministrative appealNew York
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 11,939 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