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
Jul 21, 2004

In re the Claim of Teitelbaum

This case concerns an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The claimant, an account executive for an employer whose products were sold at airport duty-free shops, was terminated after September 11, 2001, due to business decline. She applied for extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) for displaced airline-related workers. Although initially granted by an Administrative Law Judge, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding the employer was neither a supplier nor an upstream producer for an airline. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the connection between the employer's products and the airline industry was too tenuous to qualify the claimant for extended benefits under TEUC-A, and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsTEUC-ADisplaced WorkersAirline IndustrySupplier DefinitionEligibilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Chautauqua v. Civil Service Employees Ass'n, Local 1000

The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) sought arbitration regarding layoffs and displacement rights under its collective bargaining agreement (CBA) with the County of Chautauqua. The County argued that the CBA's provisions on seniority-based layoffs and interdepartmental displacement conflicted with Civil Service Law § 80, asserting these issues were non-arbitrable due to public policy. After conflicting lower court decisions, the Court of Appeals held that the CBA's layoff provision, which prioritized seniority over the employer's prerogative to determine staffing needs, violated public policy and was thus not arbitrable. However, the court found no explicit statutory or public policy prohibition against interdepartmental displacement rights, allowing arbitration on that specific grievance. Consequently, the Appellate Division's order was modified, staying arbitration for the layoff grievance but compelling it for the displacement rights grievance.

Collective Bargaining AgreementLayoffsDisplacement RightsCivil Service Law § 80ArbitrabilityPublic Policy ExceptionManagement PrerogativeSeniority RightsInterdepartmental BumpingTaylor Law
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosenthal v. City of New York

This CPLR article 78 proceeding concerns a challenge by union leaders and Parks Department employees (petitioners) against the City of New York's Work Experience Program (WEP). Petitioners alleged that WEP participants displaced civil service employees in the Parks Department, violating antidisplacement provisions of Social Services Law § 336-c (2) (e). The court, guided by a prior Appellate Division ruling requiring an individualized inquiry, examined petitioners' claims regarding displacement, workforce reduction, substantial performance of work, and loss of bargaining unit positions. Petitioners failed to provide specific evidence of individual employees being displaced or the required particularity for their claims. Consequently, the court found that petitioners did not prove a violation of the Social Services Law, leading to the denial of the petition and dismissal of the proceeding.

Work Experience ProgramAntidisplacement LawPublic AssistanceSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78Union RightsParks DepartmentCivil ServiceWorkfareWelfare Reform
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Neville v. Koch

This case addresses a challenge to New York City's rezoning of a block on West 42nd Street from medium-density manufacturing to high-density commercial and residential. Petitioners argued that the unconditional approval of the rezoning, based on hypothetical uses, was improper and that the review of offsite displacement was inadequate. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that the City's environmental review, including the study of worst-case hypothetical scenarios, satisfied SEQRA. The court also concluded that the review of offsite displacement was sufficient.

Environmental Impact StatementSEQRAZoning RezoningHypothetical UsesWorst-Case ScenariosOffsite DisplacementAs-of-Right DevelopmentRestrictive DeclarationNew York City Zoning ResolutionSpecial Clinton District
References
16
Case No. ADJ2618825 (SAC 0304473)
Regular
Nov 24, 2010

WILLIAM ROSS vs. GOLDEN STATE EQUIPMENT REPAIR, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration, rescinding a prior order that denied vocational rehabilitation benefits and a supplemental job displacement benefit. The WCAB found the applicant may have been denied due process by the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) who issued the prior order without allowing the applicant to present evidence. While the WCAB agreed the applicant is not entitled to supplemental job displacement benefits due to the injury date, the matter is returned for further proceedings on vocational rehabilitation to determine if any vested rights exist. The WCAB also noted the ALJ erred in relieving counsel without the applicant's input.

Vocational rehabilitation benefitsSupplemental job displacement benefitLabor Code section 139.5Labor Code section 4658.5Date of injuryRepeal of benefitsDue processStatus conferenceOrder relieving counselReconsideration
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Akpan v. Koch

The case concerns an appeal challenging the Board of Estimate of the City of New York's (BOE) approval of the Atlantic Terminal Project (ATP). Plaintiffs argued that the BOE, as the lead agency, failed to take a "sufficiently hard look" at the project's environmental impact, specifically regarding the secondary displacement of local residents, and improperly delegated its authority. The court found that the issue of secondary displacement was extensively examined, and the BOE made a reasoned elaboration of the project's impact, thus satisfying SEQRA's mandates. The court also rejected the argument that the BOE improperly delegated its lead agency function, finding that the BOE retained and exercised its role. Therefore, the court affirmed the Appellate Division's order.

SEQRAEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentSecondary DisplacementZoning ChangesGovernment Agency AuthorityJudicial ReviewNew YorkReal EstateLand Use Planning
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donovan v. American Airlines, Inc.

The Secretary of Labor brought suit against American Airlines, Inc., alleging violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act by not paying minimum wage to flight attendant and reservation sales agent trainees. The court evaluated whether these trainees qualified as "employees" under the Act, applying criteria from Supreme Court precedents and the Wage & Hour Administrator's guidelines. These criteria focused on the nature of the training, the primary beneficiary, and whether trainees displaced regular employees. The court found that the training primarily benefited the students, was similar to vocational instruction, and did not involve displacement of existing staff. Consequently, the court concluded that the trainees were not employees within the meaning of the Act and thus denied the Secretary of Labor's claim.

Fair Labor Standards ActFLSATraineesEmployee StatusMinimum WageVocational TrainingAirline IndustryFlight AttendantsReservation AgentsEconomic Reality Test
References
8
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03533 [239 AD3d 481]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 10, 2025

MevRam Servs., LLC v. Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC

This case concerns an appeal regarding a 'no-poaching' provision within staffing agreements between MevRam Services, LLC and Quadrum Hospitality Group, LLC, along with its affiliates. MevRam Services, LLC furnished employees to the Arlo hotels, and the agreement prohibited defendants from hiring these employees for a period. Defendants moved to dismiss MevRam's claims, arguing the provision violated the New York City Displaced Building Service Workers Protection Act (DBSWPA) and constituted unenforceable penalties. The Supreme Court denied the motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the no-poaching provision did not violate the DBSWPA as employees were not displaced, and defendants failed to demonstrate any overriding public policy concerns or that the fees were penalties.

No-Poaching ClauseStaffing AgreementBreach of ContractLiquidated DamagesMotion to DismissDisplaced Building Service Workers Protection ActAppellate DivisionContract LawEmployment LawHotel Industry
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. City of New York

This case addresses the scope of the term "environment" under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and the City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR) regulations. Petitioners, including community organizations and residents of Chinatown, challenged the City of New York's approval of a special permit for the Henry Street Tower, a high-rise luxury condominium. They argued that the city's environmental analysis failed to consider the potential displacement of low-income residents and businesses, or the alteration of the community's character. The Court ruled that "environment" explicitly includes existing patterns of population concentration, distribution, or growth, and existing community or neighborhood character, requiring consideration of long-term secondary displacement effects. Finding the respondents' environmental analysis arbitrary and capricious for failing to consider these impacts, the Court reversed the Appellate Division's order and granted petitioners' cross motion for summary judgment, thereby annulling the special permit.

Environmental ReviewSEQRACEQRZoningUrban DevelopmentCommunity CharacterPopulation DisplacementSocio-Economic ImpactConditional Negative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact Statement
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 94 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