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

Steen v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

Petitioners, employed as Recreation Workers and Therapists at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, were assigned new duties as "Treatment Plan Coordinators" under the "Buffalo Model" program. These new responsibilities included transcribing patient information, conducting patient interviews, entering data into worksheets, and performing 90-day progress reviews. Believing these tasks constituted out-of-title work typically performed by higher-grade Treatment Team Leaders, petitioners filed administrative grievances, which were consistently denied by the Governor's Office of Employee Relations. Subsequently, petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, but the Supreme Court dismissed their application, upholding the administrative determination. On appeal, the higher court found no rational basis for the administrative conclusion that the duties were a logical extension of petitioners' original roles, determining that the work was indeed out-of-title. Consequently, the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed, the administrative determination annulled, and the petition granted.

Out-of-title workGrievancePosition classificationAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAlbany CountyState Office of Mental HealthPilgrim Psychiatric CenterTreatment Plan CoordinatorsRecreation Worker
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fox v. Paterson

This decision addresses a lawsuit filed by residents and voters in New York's 29th Congressional District against Governor David A. Paterson. The plaintiffs sought to compel the Governor to call a special election sooner to fill a House of Representatives vacancy, which arose after Congressman Eric J. Massa's resignation on March 9, 2010. The Governor had announced his intention to issue a proclamation for a special election in October, to be held on November 2, 2010, coinciding with the general election. While the Court affirmed the Governor's mandatory duty under Article I, § 2, clause 4 of the U.S. Constitution to issue a writ of election, it denied the plaintiffs' request for a mandatory injunction to accelerate the election. The Court found that the Governor exercised reasonable discretion in timing the special election, citing logistical, financial, and HAVA compliance concerns. The motion for injunctive and declaratory relief was granted in part and denied in part, declaring the Governor's duty but upholding his discretion on the timing within certain limits.

Special ElectionCongressional VacancyGovernor's DiscretionWrit of ElectionDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefArticle I Section 2 Clause 4Public Officers LawHAVA ComplianceConstitutional Duty
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hase v. New York State Civil Service Department

Mr. Hase, a white male, challenged New York State's affirmative action hiring practices under Governor Cuomo's Executive Order No. 6, alleging that it led to discrimination against him in civil service hiring. After prior unsuccessful attempts in human rights and federal courts, this case was converted to a declaratory judgment action. The central questions were whether Executive Order No. 6 violated the NY Constitution's merit and fitness clause (article V, § 6) and whether the Governor had exceeded his authority without legislative authorization. The court emphasized that affirmative action plans require legislative enactment and found no such authority for Executive Order No. 6 in existing law. The court ruled in favor of Mr. Hase, declaring Executive Order No. 6 invalid.

Affirmative ActionCivil ServiceDiscriminatory HiringExecutive OrderDeclaratory JudgmentSeparation of PowersLegislative AuthorityConstitutional LawMerit and FitnessEqual Protection
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Larabee v. Governor of the State

Members of the New York State Judiciary initiated a lawsuit against various State of New York officials, challenging the government's failure to increase judicial compensation since 1999. The plaintiffs asserted two causes of action: an unconstitutional diminishment of compensation due to inflation and a violation of the separation of powers doctrine through the practice of 'linkage' – tying judicial salary increases to legislative pay raises. The Supreme Court dismissed the first cause of action and all claims against the Governor, but granted summary judgment to the plaintiffs on the second cause of action, finding that linkage unconstitutionally abused power by depriving the Judiciary of compensation increases. This appellate court affirmed both Supreme Court orders, agreeing that legislative inaction did not constitute a direct diminishment of compensation but that the employed 'linkage' violated the separation of powers by subordinating the judicial branch to the political maneuvering of the executive and legislative branches. The dismissal of the Governor as a defendant was also affirmed.

Judicial CompensationSeparation of PowersLegislative ImmunityJudicial IndependenceConstitutional LawLinkage DoctrineInflation ImpactNew York State GovernmentBudgetary PoliticsAppellate Review
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golden v. Paterson

The case involves New York State taxpayers challenging Governor Paterson's May 14, 2008, executive directive. This directive mandates state agencies to recognize same-sex marriages legally performed in other jurisdictions. Petitioners argue the directive violates State Finance Law § 123-b and the separation of powers under the New York Constitution by usurping legislative authority and causing wrongful expenditure of state funds. The court, presided over by Justice Lucy Billings, grants respondents' motions to dismiss. The court affirms that the Governor's directive is lawful, consistent with New York's common law, statutory law, and constitutional principles, and does not conflict with the Domestic Relations Law or established public policy concerning the recognition of out-of-state marriages. The decision highlights the evolving nature of the marriage recognition rule and New York's tradition of affording equal rights.

Marriage EqualitySame-Sex MarriageExecutive PowerLegislative AuthorityState Finance LawTaxpayer LawsuitConstitutional LawJudicial PrecedentComity PrinciplePublic Policy
References
63
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 1996

In re the Arbitration between Blackburne & Governor's Office of Employee Relations

Elmer H. Blackburne, an Alcoholism Program Specialist with OASAS, was terminated for violating the Hatch Act by seeking elective office. He and his union, PEF, initiated a grievance process, claiming procedural rights under their collective bargaining agreement, which OASAS and GOER eventually deemed non-arbitrable. The Supreme Court compelled arbitration, but the Appellate Division reversed, citing public policy against arbitration in this context. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, ruling that public policy precludes arbitration of Blackburne's grievance. This decision stemmed from the imperative to prevent an arbitrator from usurping the OASAS Commissioner's sovereign authority to manage federal funds, as the Hatch Act mandates either employee removal or a significant loss of federal funding for the agency.

Hatch ActPublic EmploymentArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementTermination of EmploymentPolitical ActivityFederal FundsPublic PolicySovereign AuthorityState Agency
References
19
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bloomberg L.P. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

This case addresses whether the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the Board) is obligated under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) to search for records held by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) and the applicability of FOIA Exemptions 4 and 5 to documents in the Board's possession. Bloomberg L.P. initiated the suit after the Board's limited search and withholding of information related to financial crisis interventions. The court found the Board's search inadequate, mandating a search of FRBNY records per its own regulations. Additionally, it ruled that FOIA Exemptions 4 and 5 were improperly applied to the "Remaining Term Reports," ordering their disclosure. Consequently, the court granted Bloomberg’s motion for summary judgment and denied the Board’s.

FOIAFederal Reserve SystemAgency RecordsInformation DisclosureGovernment TransparencyFinancial CrisisSummary JudgmentFederal Reserve Bank of New YorkPublic InformationJudicial Review
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pataki v. New York State Assembly

This Opinion of the Court resolves a significant dispute between the Governor and the New York State Legislature concerning their constitutional roles in the state budget process, affirming the executive budgeting system established in 1927. The Court reinforced the principle that the Governor acts as the budget's "constructor," with the Legislature primarily limited to striking out or reducing appropriation items. In Silver v Pataki, the Court declared the Legislature's actions unconstitutional for attempting to alter the purposes and conditions of Governor's 1998 appropriation bills through subsequent legislation. Similarly, regarding the 2001 budget in Pataki v New York State Assembly, the Court rejected the Legislature's use of "single-purpose bills" to replace Governor's appropriation items and upheld the Governor's authority to include detailed programmatic conditions within appropriation bills. Ultimately, the Court affirmed the Appellate Division's orders, deciding the dispute in the Governor's favor and reiterating that all appropriations inherently involve policy decisions, thereby limiting judicial intervention in budgetary content disputes unless clearly non-budgetary.

Executive BudgetingLegislative PowerSeparation of PowersAppropriation BillsLine-Item VetoConstitutional LawNew York Court of AppealsBudget ProcessGubernatorial AuthorityLegislative Alteration
References
19
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between New York State Department of Correctional Services & New York State Correctional Officers

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order vacating an arbitration award. Petitioners, the Department of Correctional Services and Governor's Office of Employee Relations, challenged an arbitrator's decision to grant a correction sergeant, Charles Hannigan, approximately $4,000 in vacation and holiday accruals. The arbitrator had initially issued an award with a 45-day suspension for Hannigan and then retained jurisdiction to ensure "made whole" implementation. Petitioners argued the arbitrator exceeded his power by reopening the arbitration. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the award, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that the arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction and subsequent reopening of the award violated explicit limitations in the collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration awardVacaturArbitrator's jurisdictionCollective bargaining agreementPublic employmentCorrection officerBack payEmployee benefitsWaiverScope of arbitration
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 38 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