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

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2001

Hahne v. State

Claimant Jacqueline Hahne, a data entry clerk for the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) in Essex County, alleged assault by inmate Jose Ortiz during a work release program at DEC headquarters. Ortiz, performing janitorial duties, reportedly touched Hahne's face and attempted to kiss her. Hahne and her husband filed a claim against the State, asserting vicarious liability for Ortiz's actions. The Court of Claims dismissed the claim, determining that workers' compensation was Hahne's exclusive remedy. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, as there was no evidence the assault was directed by the employer, nor could the State be held liable under respondeat superior since Ortiz's act was solely for personal motives and unrelated to his duties. Furthermore, no evidence supported a claim of negligent supervision due to a lack of prior knowledge of Ortiz's propensity for such conduct.

Workers' CompensationVicarious LiabilityRespondeat SuperiorNegligent SupervisionIntentional TortAssaultEmployee InjuryState LiabilityInmate Work ReleaseExclusive Remedy
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 09, 2005

Claim of Salatti v. Crucible Materials Corp.

The claimant, a data entry clerk, sustained work-related injuries to their left wrist. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded lost wage benefits and directed employer reimbursement on May 2, 2003. The employer's carrier appealed, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the reimbursement order on August 5, 2003. Subsequently, the claimant's attorney challenged the reimbursement direction, but the WCLJ, in a June 8, 2005 decision, declined to address it due to untimeliness, as the issue was not raised in the initial appeal. The Board denied full review of this issue. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion regarding the timeliness of review applications under Workers' Compensation Law § 23, and finding no abuse of discretion in deeming the claimant's request untimely.

Workers' CompensationUntimely AppealEmployer ReimbursementBoard DiscretionLost Wage BenefitsWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewSection 23
References
2
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

Accardi v. Control Data Corp.

This case, a Memorandum and Order by District Judge Whitman Knapp, addresses an ERISA action where plaintiffs sought severance pay from their former employer, Control Data Corporation (CDC), following the sale of their division to Automatic Data Processing, Inc. (ADP). Plaintiffs, initially employees of an IBM subsidiary, had their benefits, including severance pay, protected by a "Benefits Agreement" adopted by CDC upon acquisition. CDC denied severance, arguing the IBM plan didn't cover divestitures and citing its own policy. The court, applying an "arbitrary and capricious" standard, found CDC's interpretation of the IBM benefits plan, which it had adopted, to be clearly erroneous. The court concluded that the IBM plan indeed provided for severance in cases of dismissals due to division sales and did not require unemployment or prohibit "double recovery." Consequently, the court denied CDC's motion for summary judgment and granted it to the plaintiffs.

ERISASeverance PayEmployee BenefitsSummary JudgmentEmployer-Employee RelationsCorporate DivestitureAcquisitionBenefit Plan InterpretationArbitrary and Capricious StandardControl Data Corporation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2004

Workers' Compensation Board v. Rizzi

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which denied the defendant's motion to vacate a clerk’s judgment entered pursuant to Workers’ Compensation Law § 26. The defendant contended that the entry of judgment was barred by the three-year statute of limitations under CPLR 214 (2), but the court found this argument to be without merit, clarifying that the judgment entry was a ministerial act. The defendant's claim regarding incorrect award calculation was also dismissed as not properly before the Court. The order was affirmed with costs.

Workers' Compensation LawClerk's JudgmentVacate JudgmentStatute of LimitationsAppellate ReviewMinisterial ActAward CalculationAffirmed OrderJudicial ReviewCPLR
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cunningham v. Electronic Data Systems Corp.

This is a purported class action brought by Kelley Cunningham and Tam-mye Cunningham against Electronic Data Systems (EDS) under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) for unpaid overtime wages. EDS moved for summary judgment, asserting the "Air Carrier Exemption" to the FLSA, arguing plaintiffs worked under the direction of American Airlines. The court denied this motion, stating that the "control prong" of the National Mediation Board test focuses on the relationship between the air carrier and the employer (EDS), not just the individual employees, and found genuine issues of material fact. Additionally, the court granted EDS's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs' claim regarding FLSA's record-keeping requirements, as there is no private right of action for employees to enforce these provisions. Defendant may renew the motion for summary judgment with further evidence.

FLSA ExemptionsAir Carrier ExemptionRailway Labor Act CoverageOvertime Pay DisputeClass Action LawsuitSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissEmployer LiabilityNMB Control-Function TestTelecommunications Industry
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 07, 1998

Correia v. Professional Data Management, Inc.

Plaintiff, a painter employed by Creative Finishes, Ltd., fell 16 feet from an elevated platform while working at 685 Third Avenue in Manhattan, sustaining multiple fractures. He initiated an action against the building owner (Professional Data Management, Inc.), construction manager (Gotham Construction Corp.), and building manager (Williamson, Picket & Gross, Inc.), alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240, and 241. Gotham subsequently impleaded Creative Finishes, Ltd. for contractual and common-law indemnification. The Supreme Court granted plaintiff partial summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) and denied Gotham's cross-motion for summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim. This appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's orders, finding no evidence to support a recalcitrant worker defense and noting that factual questions regarding Gotham's own negligence, distinct from its statutory liability, precluded summary judgment on its contractual indemnity claim.

Labor LawScaffoldingAbsolute LiabilitySummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationCommon-Law IndemnificationRecalcitrant Worker DefenseGeneral Obligations LawConstruction AccidentPainter Fall
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 1994

New York County Data Entry Worker Product Liability Litigation v. A.B. Dick Co.

In the case of Hulse v. A.B. Dick Co., a products liability action concerning repetitive stress injury, the Supreme Court, New York County, granted the plaintiffs' motion for a protective order preventing the preverdict disclosure of settlement materials to non-settling defendants. The appellate court affirmed this decision. The court reasoned that the settlement materials were not 'material and necessary' to the defense, with the exception of the settlement amount for post-verdict apportionment under General Obligations Law § 15-108. The court also rejected the arguments that the materials were useful for assessing settlement exposure or impeachment, deeming such uses speculative. Finally, the court found no merit in the argument that settlement proceeds constituted a collateral source under CPLR 4545 (c).

Products LiabilityRepetitive Stress InjuryProtective OrderSettlement AgreementConfidentialityDiscoveryApportionmentCollateral Source RuleImpeachmentTrial Strategy
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Leyh v. Property Clerk of the City of New York Police Department

Plaintiff Evelyn Leyh initiated a federal action against the New York City Police Department and its Property Clerk, seeking the return of her seized automobile and alleging constitutional violations. She claimed deprivation of property without due process, that the forfeiture provision of the New York City Administrative Code constituted a bill of attainder, and malicious prosecution. While a state court had previously ruled in her favor regarding the forfeiture, the federal court addressed her remaining claims. The court granted summary judgment to the defendants on the due process and bill of attainder claims, upholding the constitutionality of the property seizure procedures based on prior federal rulings. Additionally, the federal court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law malicious prosecution claim, dismissing it as all federal claims had been resolved.

Due ProcessBill of AttainderMalicious ProsecutionSummary JudgmentCivil ForfeitureAutomobile Seizure42 U.S.C. § 1983Supplemental JurisdictionFederal CourtState Law Claims
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 332 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