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. 2025 NY Slip Op 25151
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Friends of Fort Greene Park v. New York City Parks & Recreation Dept.

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by Friends of Fort Greene Park against the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, challenging the environmental review process for a renovation project in Fort Greene Park. Petitioner alleged that the Parks Department failed to take a "hard look" at adverse environmental impacts, improperly segmented environmental review, issued a conditional negative declaration, and used an arbitrary tree valuation tool. The court denied the petition, finding that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and rationally applied its protocols. The court also addressed a novel claim under New York's Green Amendment, concluding it creates a self-executing substantive right but found no violation in this context, as the project was justified by important government interests and aimed for long-term environmental improvement.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRGreen AmendmentConstitutional LawPublic Park RenovationTree RemovalHistoric PreservationJudicial ReviewArticle 78 Proceeding
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friends of Square v. Sadik-Khan

The petitioners initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the decision by the New York City Department of Transportation, New York City Department of Parks and Recreation, and the City of New York to install a bike share station in Lieutenant Joseph Petrosino Square Park. They contended that the installation violated the public trust doctrine and that the decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court determined that while the park is impliedly dedicated parkland, the bike share station serves a proper park purpose. Furthermore, the court found that the respondents' decision to site the station was rational, based on technical considerations and public input, and was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied and dismissed in its entirety.

Public Trust DoctrineParkland UseBike Share StationsArticle 78 PetitionAdministrative ReviewMunicipal PlanningUrban DevelopmentNew York LawEnvironmental PolicyCommunity Engagement
References
15
Case No. 2025 NYSlipOp 07051
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 18, 2025

Matter of Rodin v. Department of Parks & Recreation

Daphyne Rodin appealed decisions from the Workers' Compensation Board concerning a schedule loss of use (SLU) award for her 2014 left shoulder injury. The Board initially denied her SLU award and subsequently denied her application for reconsideration and/or full Board review, affirming its finding that her resolved left shoulder strain was not amenable to an SLU award. Rodin challenged the Board's refusal to preclude the carrier's orthopedic consultant's medical report, arguing she was denied the opportunity for cross-examination. The Appellate Division affirmed both Board decisions, concluding that there was no abuse of discretion. This was due to the claimant's lack of reasonable efforts to timely request an extension to reschedule the deposition of the orthopedic consultant, thereby waiving her right to cross-examine.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseLeft Shoulder InjuryMedical OpinionCross-Examination WaiverDeposition SubpoenaExtension RequestAppellate ReviewBoard Decision AffirmationMaximum Medical Improvement
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dean v. Westchester County P.R.C.

Plaintiff Todd Dean filed an action under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) against the Westchester County Department of Parks, Recreation and Conservation and Westchester County. He alleged disability discrimination, including wrongful termination, failure to hire, failure to promote, and unequal terms of employment, citing depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder as his disabilities. The defendant moved to dismiss the plaintiff's amended complaints, arguing a failure to adequately plead a disability under the ADA and discriminatory treatment. The court granted the defendant's motion, dismissing the complaint with prejudice, based on the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that his alleged impairment substantially limited a major life activity as legally defined. The court also disregarded the defendant's motion under Rule 11(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

ADADisability DiscriminationEmployment TerminationFailure to PromoteMajor Life ActivitySubstantial LimitationDepressionAnxietyPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderMotion to Dismiss
References
17
Case No. ADJ218867
Regular
Apr 13, 2011

SANDY FRIZZELL vs. DEPARTMENT OF PARKS AND RECREATION, CHARTIS COSTA MESA, SCIF STATE EMPLOYEES SACRAMENTO

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of a decision regarding Sandy Frizzell's claim against the Department of Parks and Recreation. The petitioner, State Compensation Insurance Fund, contested the 17% disability rating assigned for Ms. Frizzell's headaches, arguing it was improperly calculated. The Board adopted the administrative law judge's report, which found the rating expert's testimony credible and unimpeached. The judge's report explained that the rating appropriately reflected the intermittent nature of the headaches, as testified by the expert.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedRating Expert TestimonyUnimpeached TestimonyCredible TestimonyLyme DiseaseContinuing TraumaState Compensation Insurance FundResource EcologistDisability Evaluation Specialist
References
4
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02965 [171 AD3d 567]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2019

Matter of Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt Park v. City of New York

Petitioners challenged the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation's approval of an addition to the American Museum of Natural History (Gilder Center), arguing that a Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was not conducted and that environmental impacts (hazardous materials, construction noise) were not properly assessed under SEQRA and CEQR. The Supreme Court denied their petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found that ULURP was not required because the underlying property disposition and site selection occurred over a century ago. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Parks Department had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns, including addressing hazardous vapors and proposing mitigation measures for noise, thus satisfying its obligations under environmental review statutes.

Environmental ReviewULURPSEQRACEQRPark LandMuseum ExpansionPublic Land UseArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 98-CV-1117 (LEK/RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1998

Galusha v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. ENVIRON. CONSERV.

Plaintiffs, individuals with physical disabilities, sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency, and the State of New York, alleging that their policies in managing the Adirondack Park unfairly limit their access to certain areas in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to use motorized vehicles on restricted trails. The Court found that the defendants' policy had a disparate impact on disabled persons and that allowing limited, necessary motorized access on roads already used by non-disabled personnel would not fundamentally alter the Park program. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, mandating access to specific roads for persons with certified mobility impairment disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAAdirondack ParkEnvironmental ConservationMotorized Vehicle AccessMobility ImpairmentPreliminary InjunctionDisparate ImpactPublic AccommodationsState Government Action
References
27
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 07467 [176 AD3d 1362]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2019

Matter of Molina v. Icon Parking LLC

This case concerns the calculation of an employee's average weekly wage for workers' compensation benefits. Claimant Ramon Guerra Molina sustained injuries while working as a parking lot attendant for Icon Parking LLC. The Workers' Compensation Board initially established his average weekly wage using Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (3), which resulted in a lower wage. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that the Board failed to explain why Workers' Compensation Law § 14 (2) could not be "reasonably and fairly applied" before resorting to § 14 (3). The court remitted the matter back to the Workers' Compensation Board for further proceedings, including the submission of payroll records for similar employees, to determine the appropriate method for calculating the average weekly wage.

Workers' CompensationAverage Weekly WageWage CalculationWorkers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewRemittalPayroll RecordsParking Lot AttendantStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 05005 [231 AD3d 1248]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Park (Commissioner of Labor)

Miyoung Park appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled she was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits due to not being totally unemployed. After being separated from her primary employment due to COVID-19, Park applied for benefits with her daughter's help, certifying she did not work. However, she was working part-time as a home care worker. The Department of Labor found her ineligible, charged her with recoverable overpayment, and imposed penalties for willful false statements. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence that Park was not totally unemployed and was responsible for accurate reporting.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsEligibilityTotal UnemploymentFalse StatementsOverpayment of BenefitsWillful MisrepresentationAppellate ReviewCOVID-19 PandemicHome Care WorkerAdministrative Law Judge Decision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Committee to Preserve Brighton Beach & Manhattan Beach, Inc. v. Planning Commission of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding was brought by individual and organizational petitioners, including Sternberg, Torresi, Parisi, Fruchtman, the Committee to Preserve Brighton Beach and Manhattan Beach, Inc., and Centello Towers II, against respondents Family Golf Centers, Inc. and the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation. Petitioners challenged a concession granted to Family Golf for a recreational center in Dreier-Offerman Park, alleging interferences with park use and violations of the City Charter, State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), and City Environmental Quality Review Rules (CEQR). The IAS Court initially dismissed the petition for lack of standing and found no environmental review violations. On appeal, the court reversed the standing determination, finding petitioners had standing due to their proximity and alleged injuries. It also found the Parks Department's approval arbitrary and capricious due to the City Planning Commission's failure to define "major concession" under City Charter § 374(b), remanding for a new determination. However, the court affirmed that the Parks Department complied with SEQRA and CEQR and that the public trust doctrine was not violated.

StandingConcessionEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACEQRCity CharterArticle 78 ProceedingDreier-Offerman ParkUrban PlanningLand Use
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,017 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