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. ADJ761271 (SJO 0070447)
Regular
Sep 22, 2010

Dorothy Thompson vs. GENERAL MOTORS, Permissibly SelfInsured, Adjusted by SEDGWICK CLAIMS MANAGEMENT SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has declared Dorothy Thompson a vexatious litigant. This declaration follows a notice issued on September 7, 2010, to which no response was received. As a result, any future filings by Ms. Thompson in propria persona will be considered "conditionally filed." Such filings will only be deemed properly filed after a judge or the Board determines they do not violate Rule 10782(a).

Vexatious LitigantPre-filing OrderWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardPropria PersonaRule 10782(a)Conditionally FiledPermissibly Self-InsuredSedgwick Claims Management ServicesNotice of IntentionPresiding Workers' Compensation Judge
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Watch Hill Homeowners Ass'n v. Town Board

The Town Board of the Town of Greenburgh proposed constructing a 1,000,000-gallon water tank and, acting as lead agency under SEQRA, designated it a "Type I" action. Despite identifying "potential large impacts" on the environment, the Board issued a negative declaration of environmental significance. Petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the issuance of the negative declaration as arbitrary and capricious. The court found that the Town Board failed to provide a "reasoned elaboration" for its determination, especially regarding the project's aesthetic impacts, which it deemed insufficient to justify a negative declaration. Consequently, the court annulled the Town Board's determination, granted the petition, and declared Resolution No. 93-46 and all subsequent construction authorizations invalid.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationCPLR Article 78Water Storage TankTown BoardGreenburghAesthetic ImpactEnvironmental AssessmentType I Action
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Greece Support Service Employees Ass'n v. Public Employment Relations Board

This case concerns an appeal regarding the proper application of Civil Service Law § 209-a (1) (e) to salary provisions in an expired collective bargaining agreement between an unnamed petitioner and the Greece Central School District. The agreement, from July 1992 to June 1995, included cost-of-living adjustments for salary schedules during its term. After the agreement expired, the District continued existing salary schedules but ceased further cost-of-living adjustments for 1995-1996, prompting the petitioner to file an improper practice charge. The Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision, concluding that the agreement did not mandate continued cost-of-living adjustments post-expiration. The Supreme Court dismissed the petitioner's subsequent CPLR article 78 petition seeking annulment of PERB's determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to PERB's expertise and finding its interpretation that the adjustments were limited to the agreement's term to be reasonable and legally permissible.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSalary AdjustmentCost-of-Living AdjustmentPublic EmployerImproper Practice ChargeCivil Service LawPublic Employment Relations BoardJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Statutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF MERSON v. McNally

The Court of Appeals addresses whether a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) can be issued for a Type I action, even when the project has been modified to accommodate environmental concerns. Reviewing two related cases, Matter of Merson v McNally and Matter of Philipstown Indus. Park v Town Bd., the Court examines a mining project by Philipstown Industrial Park, Inc. (PIP) in the Town of Philipstown, Putnam County. The Planning Board, acting as the lead agency, issued a negative declaration after PIP revised its plans in response to public and agency input regarding noise, traffic, and groundwater. The Appellate Division had annulled this declaration, viewing the modifications as impermissible 'conditioned negative declarations.' The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that such project adjustments, made through an open and deliberative process to mitigate potential adverse effects, are a legitimate part of SEQRA review and do not invalidate a negative declaration. The cases are remitted to the Appellate Division for consideration of unaddressed issues, including preemption.

Environmental ReviewSEQRANegative DeclarationMined Land Reclamation LawType I ActionProject ModificationEnvironmental Impact StatementLead AgencyZoning LawAppellate Review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Bruzzese v. Guardsman Elevator Co.

In 1994, the claimant sustained head, neck, and back injuries at work, leading to an award for permanent partial disability, which included a wage expectancy adjustment under Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5). Following back surgery in 1998, the case was reopened, and the claimant was found to be temporarily totally disabled. Benefits for this temporary total disability were calculated based on the claimant's average weekly wage at the time of injury, without applying the wage expectancy adjustment. The claimant appealed, arguing that since the permanent partial disability preceded the temporary total disability, the wage expectancy adjustment should also apply to the latter period. The court disagreed, affirming the Workers’ Compensation Board's decision, citing established case law that Workers’ Compensation Law § 14 (5) is applicable only to awards for permanent partial disability and not temporary disability.

Wage expectancyTemporary total disabilityPermanent partial disabilityWorkers' Compensation benefitsBack injuryAppellate reviewDisability calculationWorkers' Compensation BoardAverage weekly wage
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioners challenged the Broome County Legislature's negative declaration of environmental impact for a proposed public safety facility, which included a 400-bed jail and other county offices in the Town of Dickinson, Broome County. The proposed complex was classified as a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), presumptively requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court initially annulled the negative declaration but denied injunctive relief. This appellate court affirmed the annulment of the negative declaration and further directed respondents to investigate and discuss the storage of petroleum/chemical products and sewage treatment capacity within the required EIS, modifying the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also upheld the denial of petitioners' request for injunctive relief, noting that SEQRA mandates environmental review completion before any construction.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementPublic Safety FacilityBroome CountyCPLR Article 78Cross AppealsAnnulmentInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1998

Wilkinson v. Planning Board of the Town of Thompson

The petitioners challenged the Town of Thompson's Planning Board and Town Board's environmental determination and approvals for a Wal-Mart 'super-center' project, which included a negative declaration of environmental impact, site plan approval, rezoning, and proposed abandonment of a road. The Supreme Court dismissed their petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the Planning Board's negative declaration was not arbitrary or capricious, as it conducted a 'hard look' at environmental concerns and provided a 'reasoned elaboration.' The court also ruled that the mitigating measures incorporated by Wal-Mart during the review process did not constitute an impermissible conditioned negative declaration, as they were voluntary adjustments made to address identified concerns. Finally, the court agreed that the abandonment of Lanahans Road was justified under Highway Law § 212-a.

Environmental ReviewSite Plan ApprovalSubdivision ApprovalNegative DeclarationConditioned Negative DeclarationSEQRALand UseZoningRoad AbandonmentWal-Mart
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2009

Prand Corp. v. Town Board of Town of East Hampton

This case involves a hybrid proceeding initiated by petitioners/plaintiffs to challenge a determination by the Town Board of the Town of East Hampton. The petitioners sought to annul Local Law No. 25 (2007), which amended the Open Space Preservation Law, and to declare Local Law No. 16 (2005) and Local Law No. 25 (2007) null and void. The Town Board, acting as the lead agency, had issued a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) for Local Law No. 25, obviating the need for an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court annulled Local Law No. 25 as it applied to the petitioners' property, finding it was enacted in violation of SEQRA, and remitted the matter for full SEQRA review. The appellate court affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town Board failed to take the requisite "hard look" at potential environmental impacts such as soil erosion, vegetation removal, and conflicts with the community's comprehensive plan, thus improperly issuing the negative declaration.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawZoning LawLand UseLocal Law No. 25 (2007)Local Law No. 16 (2005)Comprehensive PlanNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementTown Board
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2000

Spitzer v. Farrell

The New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) implemented an interim plan to transport Manhattan's solid waste to New Jersey, necessitating an environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). DOS issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant environmental impact. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that DOS failed to adequately consider the impact of PM2.5 emissions, relying instead on outdated PM10 standards. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition. This court reversed that decision, finding that DOS's failure to take a "hard look" at potential PM2.5 impacts was an error of law under SEQRA. Consequently, the negative declaration was annulled, and DOS was directed to conduct a new environmental assessment addressing all relevant concerns, including PM2.5 emissions.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationAir QualityPM2.5 EmissionsPM10 StandardsDiesel EmissionsWaste ManagementJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 1984

Gotbaum v. Lewis

This case concerns a dispute over the regulatory authority of the New York State Superintendent of Insurance regarding employee welfare funds administered unilaterally by municipal unions but financed by the City of New York. Plaintiffs, trustees of these funds, sought a declaration that they were not bound by Insurance Law article III-A, citing decades of legislative intent and administrative practice that excluded unilaterally administered funds from its scope. Despite a history of failed legislative attempts to expand jurisdiction, the Superintendent of Insurance moved to compel registration. The court ultimately modified a prior order, denying the plaintiffs' motion and granting the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, thereby declaring that the Insurance Department possesses regulatory jurisdiction over these funds under Insurance Law article III-A, § 37-a.

Employee welfare fundsRegulatory jurisdictionInsurance Law Article III-AUnilaterally administered fundsCollective bargainingMunicipal unionsLegislative intentStatutory interpretationAdministrative overreachSummary judgment
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 1,583 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