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. 2022 NY Slip Op 03553 [207 AD3d 117]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 02, 2022

Sullivan v. New York State Joint Commn. on Pub. Ethics

Katherine C. Sullivan and Kat Sullivan LLC challenged the New York State Joint Commission on Public Ethics (JCOPE) regarding the application of the Lobbying Act to their advocacy efforts for the Child Victims Act. Plaintiffs asserted the Act was unconstitutional on its face due to First Amendment violations, vagueness, and overbreadth, and also challenged its constitutionality as applied to their activities, alongside the validity of JCOPE's regulations. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal of the facial challenges to the Lobbying Act, declaring it constitutional, and also upheld the dismissal of the challenge to JCOPE's regulations. However, the court reversed the Supreme Court's dismissal of the 'as-applied' challenges, concluding that a justiciable and ripe controversy existed. This allows for judicial review of JCOPE's interpretation and enforcement against plaintiffs' past and threatened future advocacy.

Lobbying ActFirst AmendmentFreedom of SpeechOverbreadth DoctrineVagueness DoctrineJusticiabilityRipenessDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewChild Victims Act
References
77
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Trump

Plaintiffs Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW), Restaurant Opportunities Centers United (ROC United), Jill Phaneuf, and Eric Goode sued Donald J. Trump, in his official capacity as President, alleging violations of the Domestic and Foreign Emoluments Clauses of the U.S. Constitution due to his continued business interests. Plaintiffs sought declaratory judgment and injunctions to prevent further violations and require the release of financial records. Defendant moved to dismiss for lack of standing and failure to state a claim. The U.S. District Court granted the motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, finding that the 'Hospitality Plaintiffs' (ROC United, Phaneuf, and Goode) lacked Article III standing due to a failure to demonstrate competitive injury traceable to Defendant's actions or redressable by the court, and that their claims fell outside the Emoluments Clauses' zone of interests. The court also ruled that CREW lacked standing as its alleged injury of diverted resources was deemed self-inflicted and an 'abstract concern.' Furthermore, the court considered the Foreign Emoluments Clause claims non-justiciable as a political question and not ripe for judicial review, as Congress had not yet asserted its authority.

Emoluments ClauseStandingSubject Matter JurisdictionPolitical Question DoctrineRipeness DoctrineConstitutional LawSeparation of PowersEconomic CompetitionOrganizational StandingPresidential Powers
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc. v. Black

This civil rights action, brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, involves protestors and activists who alleged violations of their First and Fourteenth Amendment rights at the State University of New York at Buffalo. The plaintiffs displayed graphic anti-abortion photo-murals and claimed that university officials intentionally allowed counter-demonstrators to obstruct their exhibit, thereby impairing their freedom of speech and equal protection rights. The court addressed the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, as well as the plaintiffs' standing to sue. It denied the motion to dismiss for the remaining plaintiffs—Center for Bio-Ethical Reform, Inc., UB Students for Life, and Matthew Ramsey—finding they plausibly alleged constitutional violations based on viewpoint discrimination and retaliation. However, the court dismissed Gregg Cunningham, Darius Hardwick, and Christian Andzel from the action without prejudice due to lack of individual standing.

Civil RightsFirst AmendmentEqual Protection42 U.S.C. § 1983Motion to DismissStandingViewpoint DiscriminationUniversity ProtestsAnti-abortionPublic Forum
References
60
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Stolzenberg

Petitioner, an employee at Westchester County Medical Center, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Hospitals of Westchester County that terminated her employment for misconduct. The misconduct involved two incidents where she allegedly attempted to pull down male co-workers' trousers, violating sexual harassment policy and the Ethics Code. While the court upheld findings related to the sexual harassment policy, it found no basis for violating the Ethics Code, as the code lacked relevant provisions. Consequently, two specifications were dismissed, and the case was remitted for a reassessment of the penalty.

Employment TerminationMisconductSexual Harassment PolicyEthics CodeCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate CourtWestchester CountyCredibility Assessment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kletter v. Fleming

This case involves an appeal from an order that granted the plaintiff's motion to dismiss the defendant's counterclaim alleging a violation of Labor Law article 6. The defendant, a dentist, worked for the plaintiff under a contract and, after termination, filed counterclaims for nonpayment and Labor Law violations. The Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law counterclaim and precluded the defendant from presenting proof for corrective work payment. The appellate court affirmed, ruling that Labor Law article 6 was inapplicable as the claim was a common-law contractual remuneration claim and not a substantive violation. It also upheld the preclusion regarding payment for corrective work, citing the clear terms of the contract and the parol evidence rule, which barred extrinsic evidence of additional payment terms.

breach of contractlabor law violationwage disputecontractual remunerationparol evidence rulesummary judgmentpreclusion motionappellate reviewdentist employmentemployer-employee dispute
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hayes v. Hayes

This case concerns an appeal from the Family Court of Saratoga County's dismissal of a petitioner's application to hold the respondent in willful violation of a child support order. The respondent, who had accumulated significant arrears and made no payments since September 1999, claimed disability due to an automobile accident but failed to provide sufficient medical evidence to support his inability to pay. The Hearing Examiner erred by finding no willful violation and by sua sponte reducing the respondent's child support obligation without a cross-petition or adequate proof of changed circumstances. The Appellate Division reversed the lower court's order, granted the petitioner's application, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, concluding that a willful violation was warranted and the downward modification was improper.

Child SupportWillful ViolationSupport ArrearsDisability ClaimMedical EvidenceDownward ModificationFamily CourtAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofNonpayment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Willard v. O-At-Ka Milk Products Cooperative

A claimant was awarded workers' compensation benefits after falling from a milk truck in 2009, suffering multiple injuries. The employer alleged the claimant violated Workers’ Compensation Law § 114-a by failing to disclose a 2007 motor vehicle accident and related neck pain. While a Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially found a violation, the Workers’ Compensation Board rescinded this decision, concluding no violation occurred, and remitted the case for further development on the degree of disability. The employer appealed. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that the claimant did not knowingly make a false statement, given testimony that she was not specifically asked about prior neck issues and that her previous neck soreness was minor and temporary.

Workers' CompensationFraud AllegationMisrepresentationPrior Injury DisclosureIndependent Medical ExaminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceNew York LawNeck InjuryDisability Assessment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Justin J.

Petitioner initiated neglect proceedings under Family Ct Act article 10 against respondent Arnold J. and his wife, alleging inadequate supervision, failure to administer prescribed medication, excessive corporal punishment, and drug abuse in the presence of their six children. The children were subsequently removed from the home. The Family Court of Clinton County found respondent and his wife committed acts constituting neglect and violated preliminary orders. Respondent appealed both findings. The appellate court noted that the appeal concerning the violation of preliminary orders had been previously resolved. Focusing on the neglect finding, the court found ample evidence to support the Family Court's determination, including respondent's admissions to inadequate supervision, using excessive corporal punishment, and smoking marihuana while caring for the children. Further testimony from a friend, a physician, and a caseworker corroborated the neglect allegations, detailing drug use, suspected medication sales, and respondent's erratic behavior endangering the children. Consequently, the appellate court affirmed the order finding neglect and dismissed the appeal from the order finding respondent in violation of prior orders.

Child NeglectFamily CourtParental RightsSubstance AbuseCorporal PunishmentInadequate SupervisionAppellate ReviewEvidenceCredibilityDomestic Violence
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 5,369 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