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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. 5615/89; 2643/91
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan

The court denies the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan of the City of New York's request for further reconsideration of 'reasonable compensation' awarded to expert witness Hillel Bodek in People v Toe and People v Hoe. Judge Goodman reaffirmed the original compensation, emphasizing that judicial determinations of expert fees under County Law § 722-c are not subject to administrative review by the Director. The court rejected arguments regarding excessive compensation, lack of specificity in orders, and the expert's qualifications, highlighting the confidentiality of reports and the judge's sole authority in such matters. The opinion clarified the roles of judges and administrators in the assigned counsel plan. The Director was ordered, under penalty of contempt, to process the payment of $5,200 and $200 for Bodek's services.

Expert Witness CompensationCounty Law § 722-cJudicial DiscretionAdministrative ReviewForensic Social WorkMental Health EvaluationConfidentiality of ReportsProfessional QualificationsExtraordinary CircumstancesContempt Order
References
11
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brynien v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

This case is an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed petitioner’s applications to review denials of out-of-title work grievances. The petitioner, representing five state employees at the Office of Mental Health (OMH), alleged that employees were improperly assigned duties of a Treatment Team Leader, a higher-grade position, violating their collective bargaining agreement and Civil Service Law § 61 (2). OMH and the Governor’s Office of Employee Relations (GOER) denied the grievances, finding the duties appropriate to the employees' titles. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that GOER's determination was rational. The court found that the assigned duties were a reasonable extension of the employees' in-title duties and that the employees did not meet the minimum requirements for the higher-grade Treatment Team Leader position.

Out-of-title workGrievanceCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee ClassificationJob DutiesSupervisory DutiesRational Basis ReviewAdministrative LawJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ7948448
Regular
Nov 03, 1971

HENRY LOPEZ vs. WINDSOR SNF MANAGEMENT, TOWER SELECT INSURANCE COMPANY

This case involves an applicant who, while on a work assignment, experienced a diabetic episode causing dizziness. He stopped at a nearby market to eat and subsequently slipped and fell, injuring his hip and knee. The employer argued the injury was outside the scope of employment due to a deviation and the going and coming rule. However, the WCJ found the deviation was reasonable under the personal comfort rule for a known medical condition, and the Appeals Board adopted this reasoning, denying reconsideration. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility findings and resolved reasonable doubts in favor of the employee, consistent with precedent.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Administrative Law JudgeCredibility FindingInjury to left hip and left kneeDiabetic episodeLow blood sugarDeviation from work assignmentGoing and coming ruleInsbexual evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1980

Claim of Stark v. Hoff Lithograph Co.

A bookkeeper and office manager, regularly taking work home due to her responsibilities, was mugged and seriously injured on her way home after working late at the office. She was carrying payroll schedules to complete at home. The Workers’ Compensation Board awarded benefits, finding she was on a special assignment. This decision was affirmed on appeal, concluding that her quasi-executive role and unilateral decision to work at home brought her efforts within the 'special assignment' rule, making her injuries compensable.

Special Assignment RuleWorkers' CompensationMuggingOff-Duty InjuryWork From HomeCompensable InjuryEmployment ScopeGoing and Coming Rule ExceptionNew YorkBookkeeper
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Monroe

The claimant, a truck driver, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits after refusing a work assignment. The claimant declined the assignment to attend a co-worker's grievance hearing, despite not being requested to attend. The employer warned that refusal constituted insubordination, leading to discharge. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld the disqualification, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The court noted that refusing reasonable work assignments can be disqualifying misconduct and found no error in the Board's resolution of credibility issues or denial of subpoenas for irrelevant witnesses.

unemployment insurancemisconductinsubordinationrefusal of work assignmentappellate reviewcredibility determinationdue processadministrative lawemployee dischargework assignment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan v. Townsend

This case involves an appeal by the Director of the Assigned Counsel Plan from orders of the Supreme Court, New York County. The Director's applications sought to reduce vouchers for compensation for services other than counsel in multiple criminal cases. The Supreme Court denied these applications and, upon reconsideration, adhered to its decisions directing the processing of the vouchers. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed these orders, finding no basis to disturb the lower court's determinations of "reasonable compensation" and "extraordinary circumstances" under County Law § 722-c. The court further ruled that such determinations are not reviewable by the Appellate Division, emphasizing that fiscal concerns regarding compensation should be addressed through administrative review processes.

Assigned Counsel PlanVoucher CompensationCriminal Defense ServicesAttorney CompensationSocial Worker CompensationCounty Law 722-cExtraordinary CircumstancesAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionAdministrative Review
References
4
Case No. 698 F.Supp. 452
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1988

Tunis v. Corning Glass Works

Catherine Tunis, a process engineer at Corning Glass, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed a hostile work environment due to pinup photographs, gender-based language, and catcalls, and that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints and an EEOC filing. The court found that the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action regarding the hostile environment claims. Additionally, the court determined that Tunis failed to demonstrate that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons provided by Corning Glass for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, all of Tunis's claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentGender BiasWrongful TerminationFederal Lawsuit
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 7,250 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