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
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dormeyer v. McCall

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent's denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits. The denial stemmed from the petitioner's failure to provide the mandatory written notice under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c (e) (a). The court found that the petitioner did not preserve the 'good cause' exception issue for review as it was not raised during the administrative hearing. Furthermore, the court upheld the respondent's determination that oral notice to the employer was insufficient to satisfy the Workers’ Compensation Law exception. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementPerformance of Duty BenefitsNotice RequirementsAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssuesGood CauseWorkers' Compensation ExceptionOral NoticeDetermination Confirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. New York State & Local Policemen's & Firemen's Retirement System

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent Comptroller's denial of his application for performance of duty disability retirement benefits. The denial was predicated on the petitioner's failure to furnish the written notice stipulated by Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c (e) (a). The petitioner's reliance on an exception for workers' compensation notice, even with oral notice and the employer's actual knowledge, was deemed insufficient. The court reaffirmed that a Workers’ Compensation Board's decision to excuse late notice does not bind the Comptroller for disability retirement purposes. Consequently, as no applicable statutory exceptions were met, the Comptroller's determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability Retirement BenefitsPerformance of DutyNotice RequirementsWorkers' Compensation LawRetirement and Social Security LawComptroller DeterminationJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawTimely NoticeStatutory Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lewin v. Shalala

Marianne Lewin filed an action to review a final decision by the Secretary of Health and Human Services, Donna E. Shalala, denying her Medicare benefits for a stay in a Skilled Nursing Facility (SNF). Lewin broke her wrist and was admitted to an SNF without fulfilling the prerequisite of a three-day hospital stay, as mandated by 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(i). Both the Administrative Law Judge and the Appeals Council upheld the denial of coverage. Lewin argued for reimbursement based on exceptions for lack of knowledge or administrative error and also claimed a denial of equal protection. The court found that the Secretary's decision was supported by substantial evidence, and that the statutory exceptions and equal protection claims were not applicable to Lewin's situation. Consequently, the court granted the Secretary's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Lewin's motion.

Medicare Benefits DenialSkilled Nursing Facility CoverageSocial Security Act ReviewThree-Day Hospital Stay RuleAdministrative Decision UpholdingSubstantial Evidence StandardEqual Protection ClaimMedicare EligibilityHealthcare ReimbursementFederal Court Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2002

Claim of Speer v. Wackenhut Corp.

The claimant sought workers' compensation benefits for mental depression, alleging it resulted from being removed from a security guard position by their employer. The Workers' Compensation Board initially ruled the injury non-compensable under Workers' Compensation Law § 2 (7), deeming it a direct consequence of lawful personnel decisions. The claimant subsequently filed applications for full Board review and reconsideration, both of which were denied by the Board. This appeal concerns the denials of those applications. The court dismissed the appeal from the May 1, 2002 denial as untimely and affirmed the December 11, 2002 denial, finding that the Board did not abuse its discretion by not requiring transcription of oral arguments before rendering its decision.

Workers' CompensationMental DepressionStress-related InjuryPersonnel DecisionsReconsideration DenialFull Board ReviewAppellate ProcedureTimeliness of AppealOral Argument TranscriptionAdministrative Discretion
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bush v. Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.

This case involves an appeal from the denial of a third-party defendant's (Yankee One Dollar Stores, Inc.) motions for summary judgment against a defendant (Mechanicville Warehouse Corp.). The plaintiff, Bush, was injured at work and sued Mechanicville, who then brought a third-party action against Yankee for indemnification. Yankee argued that plaintiff did not sustain a 'grave injury' under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 and that there was no written contractual indemnification agreement. The appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment regarding the 'grave injury' claim, finding sufficient evidence of permanent total disability due to a traumatic brain injury. However, the court reversed the denial of summary judgment for contractual indemnification, ruling that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 requires an *express written contract* of indemnification from the employer, which was not present between Yankee and Mechanicville.

Summary JudgmentThird-Party ActionWorkers' Compensation Law § 11Grave InjuryContractual IndemnificationBrain InjuryPermanent Total DisabilityHoldover TenantExpress AgreementAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kosakow v. New Rochelle Radiology Associates, P.C.

Nancy Kosakow sued her former employer, New Rochelle Radiology Associates, alleging FMLA violations and wrongful denial of severance pay under ERISA. The court previously found FMLA claims collaterally estopped but remanded the ERISA claim to the Plan Administrator for a determination on severance eligibility. The Administrator denied severance, finding Kosakow not "terminated" and, even if so, not entitled to severance. This court reversed the "not terminated" finding, stating Kosakow was terminated due to a reduction in force. However, the court affirmed the Administrator's denial of severance, concluding that the "where applicable" clause in the Plan gave the Administrator broad discretion and that Kosakow's circumstances did not warrant severance. The court found that the denial was not unreasonable, even when considering a severance payment made to another full-time employee under different circumstances.

ERISASeverance PayFMLATerminationSummary JudgmentDe Novo ReviewPlan Administrator DiscretionEmployee BenefitsReduction in ForcePolicy Manual
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cook v. DiNapoli

The case concerns a petitioner seeking to excuse the notice requirement for a disability retirement claim. The petitioner argued that either a workers' compensation claim or a 'good cause' exception should apply. The court found that the workers' compensation claim was not filed within the statutory timeframe, and the Workers’ Compensation Board’s subsequent decision to excuse its untimeliness was not binding on the respondent. Regarding the good cause exception, the petitioner failed to notify the employer of the injury or disability within 30 days of the occurrence, as required by regulation, instead waiting a year. The court upheld the respondent's interpretation that the notice event is the occurrence of the disability, not its diagnosis. Consequently, substantial evidence supported the respondent’s denial of the good cause exception, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementWorkers' CompensationNotice RequirementGood Cause ExceptionTimelinessEmployer NotificationOccupational DisabilityAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewRetirement and Social Security Law
References
5
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 03856 [172 AD3d 1658]
Regular Panel Decision
May 16, 2019

Matter of Cozzi v. American Stock Exch.

The case involves Guy Cozzi, who appealed the Workers' Compensation Board's denial of his application to reopen his workers' compensation claim. Cozzi had previously filed a claim related to the World Trade Center cleanup operations, which was denied as untimely and not meeting the criteria for the exception under Workers' Compensation Law article 8-A. The Board affirmed the initial denial, and the Appellate Division also affirmed the denial of reconsideration. In 2017, Cozzi applied to reopen the claim, citing additional voluntary activities at the site. The Board denied the reopening application, citing a lack of jurisdiction under Workers' Compensation Law § 123, as the claim was disallowed after a trial on the merits and more than seven years had passed since the accident. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no abuse of discretion.

Workers' CompensationWorld Trade CenterCleanup OperationsClaim ReopeningJurisdictionTimelinessBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Law § 123
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Berner v. Town of Huntington

The court addressed the defendant's motion to reargue a previously denied summary judgment motion. The original denial stemmed from the court's finding that an exception to the prior written notice requirement for municipalities applied, as the defendant, Town of Huntington, had actual knowledge of a defective curb, had inspected it, and had slated it for repair. The defendant contended that recent Court of Appeals precedent, particularly Amabile v City of Buffalo, abrogated this 'actual notice and inspection' exception. However, the court distinguished Amabile by noting it concerned constructive notice and reaffirmed the vitality of the narrow exception for actual notice coupled with inspection. The court emphasized that the policy behind written notice laws is not to shield municipalities from liability for known and unaddressed defects, especially when a property owner has vigilantly reported the issue. Consequently, the court granted reargument but upheld its initial decision, allowing the plaintiff's claim to proceed.

Prior Written NoticeMunicipal LiabilityActual Notice ExceptionSummary JudgmentReargument MotionCurb DefectHighway LawTown LawGeneral Municipal LawSpecial Duty
References
25
Showing 1-10 of 4,032 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