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

Gamble v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

Petitioner applied for a general plant laborer position with Adirondack Steel Casting Company in April 1975. After a pre-employment physical by Dr. Nicholas Teresi, petitioner was rejected due to an enlarged heart. Petitioner filed a complaint with the State Division of Human Rights, which found unlawful discrimination and ordered hiring with back pay. Adirondack appealed to the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which reversed the decision, citing lack of substantial evidence and administrative delay. Petitioner brought this proceeding, arguing the board erred on both points. The court confirmed the board's determination, dismissing the petition, finding no substantial evidence of discrimination and that the employer had a rational basis to rely on medical opinion.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationPre-employment PhysicalEnlarged HeartState Division of Human RightsState Human Rights Appeal BoardAdministrative DelaySubstantial EvidenceMedical OpinionEmployer Liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

This case examines the State Division of Human Rights' power to dismiss complaints for administrative convenience. Six employees initially filed age discrimination complaints against their employer (petitioner) with the Division. A subsequent federal action resulted in a settlement, with only one of the six employees receiving proceeds. The Division later dismissed the state complaints for administrative convenience due to the burden of prolonged hearings. The State Human Rights Appeal Board reversed this dismissal, arguing it denied due process. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appeal Board's order, holding that the Division's dismissal was not 'purely arbitrary' and that the complainants still had access to State court remedies, thus satisfying due process requirements. The Appeal Board exceeded its limited review powers by substituting its judgment for that of the Division.

Administrative ConvenienceAge DiscriminationHuman Rights LawScope of ReviewDue ProcessStatute of Limitations TollingState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardJudicial DiscretionEmployer Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goldberg v. Kroeger

This is an opinion of the Court of Appeals. The court reviewed submissions pursuant to rule 500.2 (b) of the Rules of the Court of Appeals. The order from the Appellate Division was affirmed, with costs, based on the reasons stated in the Appellate Division's memorandum. Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, and Meyer concurred with the decision.

Court of AppealsAppellate ReviewOrder AffirmedProcedural ReviewLegal ProcedureJudicial ConcurrenceRules of CourtDecision MakingCosts AwardedMemorandum Decision
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cornell v. 360 West 51st Street Realty, LLC

Brenda Cornell sued 360 West 51st Street Corp. for personal injuries allegedly caused by indoor exposure to dampness and mold in her Manhattan apartment. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant, finding Cornell failed to prove general or specific causation under the Frye standard. The Appellate Division subsequently reversed this, suggesting Cornell's expert opinion had "some support" in scientific literature. However, the Court of Appeals, in this opinion, reversed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that Cornell failed to raise a triable issue of fact. The court reiterated that scientific "association" does not equate to "causation" and found her expert's differential diagnosis insufficient due to lack of exposure quantification and inadequate ruling out of other causes. Consequently, the defendant's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was ultimately granted.

Mold ExposurePersonal InjuryCausationFrye StandardScientific EvidenceExpert Witness TestimonySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewEnvironmental HealthDifferential Diagnosis
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Lane & Endicott Johnson Corp.

The Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The stay is continued until the appellant has an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, if so advised.

Appellate ProcedurePermission to AppealCourt of AppealsStay of ProceedingsJudicial Panel
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Oddy v. Oddy

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Warren County that modified a prior joint custody order, granting the petitioner (mother) sole physical custody of the child and specifying visitation for the respondent (father). The respondent appealed, arguing that the Family Court abused its discretion by modifying custody without a showing of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division found sufficient changed circumstances, citing a significant breakdown in communication between the father and the child, which negatively impacted his ability to meet her emotional needs, and the child's consistent strong desire to reside with her mother. The court considered the opinions of the child's social worker and a court-appointed psychologist, both of whom supported the change in physical custody to enhance the child's emotional development. Consequently, the Family Court's order affirming the modification of the custody arrangement was affirmed.

Custody ModificationChild's Best InterestFamily Law AppealParental RightsPhysical CustodyJoint CustodyChanged CircumstancesChild PreferenceCommunication BreakdownMental Health Evaluation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Hilligas

This court opinion addresses a motion by "The People" to compel the testimony of Kathy Hilligas, mother of the defendant, Mario J. Rossetti, before a Grand Jury regarding alleged conversations about a murder. Mrs. Hilligas claimed a "child-parent" privilege, but her son, the defendant, is 28 years old, self-supporting, and lives independently. The court reviewed New York precedents, noting that while the privilege has been recognized for minor children, its extension to adults in *People v Fitzgerald* was an outlier, and the Court of Appeals in *People v Johnson* considered age a significant factor. Concluding that the nature of the parent-child relationship significantly changes in adulthood and no longer outweighs the State's interest in investigating serious crimes, the court denied the defendant's motion. Consequently, Mrs. Hilligas was ordered to testify, rejecting the application of the parent-child privilege in this instance.

Parent-child privilegeConfidential communicationsGrand Jury testimonyAdult childEvidentiary privilegeTestimonial privilegeCommon-law privilegeConstitutional right to privacyState interest in fact-findingMotion to compel
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 18, 1993

Fletcher v. Kidder, Peabody & Co.

This consolidated appeal addresses the enforceability of anticipatory agreements to arbitrate statutory discrimination claims, specifically those alleging racial and gender discrimination under the State Human Rights Law. The Court re-examines its 1979 decision in Matter of Wertheim & Co. v Halpert, concluding that it is superseded by recent U.S. Supreme Court precedent, particularly Gilmer v Interstate/Johnson Lane Corp., in cases governed by the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). The Court establishes that the arbitrability of such claims depends on congressional intent to preclude a waiver of a judicial forum for disputes based on a particular statutory right. Finding no such intent in the legislative history of Title VII or its amendments, the Court affirms the Appellate Division's orders, compelling arbitration for both plaintiffs. The opinion also rejects the argument that the U-4 Form, a standard securities industry registration application, constitutes a "contract of employment" thereby falling under an FAA exclusion.

ArbitrationFederal Arbitration ActEmployment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationGender DiscriminationState Human Rights LawU-4 FormSecurities IndustryJudicial ForumWaiver
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lickers v. State

Claimant Howard Lickers initiated an action against the State under Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241, seeking damages for injuries from a scaffold fall at a bridge construction site. A parallel action against the general contractor, Albert Elia Building Company, Inc., saw a denial of Lickers' motion for partial summary judgment, a decision upheld on appeal. Subsequently, Lickers' similar motion against the State in the Court of Claims was also denied, with the court citing the appellate determination as law of the case. This opinion re-examines prior rulings, notably Smith v Hooker Chems. & Plastics Corp. and Heath v Soloff Constr., to clarify the obligations of owners and contractors concerning safety devices under Labor Law § 240 (1). Concluding that the previous interpretations of Smith were unduly restrictive and the current allegations differ, the court rejected the State's res judicata arguments and remitted the matter to the Court of Claims, affording the State an opportunity to present further evidentiary opposition.

Scaffold AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentSafety DevicesRecalcitrant Worker DefenseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureCourt of ClaimsRemandLaw of the Case
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Unified Court System v. Court Attorneys Ass'n

The case addresses the arbitrability of a dispute between the Unified Court System (petitioner) and a respondent union. The petitioner had designated three newly hired Supervising Court Attorneys as "managerial/confidential," asserting that this classification falls under the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) as per the Taylor Law and not within the scope of arbitration. Conversely, the respondent union argued that the matter should be arbitrated under the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) recognition clause and general arbitration provisions. The court applied a two-step analysis to assess arbitrability, concluding that there were no statutory or public policy prohibitions preventing arbitration of the "managerial or confidential" designation. It also found a reasonable relationship between the dispute's subject matter and the CBA's provisions regarding new positions. Consequently, the court denied the petitioner's motion to stay arbitration and granted the respondent's cross-motion, directing the parties to proceed with arbitration.

Public Employment ArbitrationManagerial/Confidential Employee DesignationCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Taylor LawCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations Board (PERB)Arbitrability DisputeUnion RepresentationGrievance ProcedureNew York Court System
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 37,632 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