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
Feb 16, 1979

Gross Veneer Co. v. American Mutual Insurance

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court at Special Term in St. Lawrence County, which granted plaintiff, Gross Veneer Company, Inc., partial summary judgment. The dispute arose from a manufacturer’s blanket crime policy issued by defendant, American Mutual Insurance Companies, insuring against employee dishonesty. Plaintiff sought to recover funds embezzled by Chester Shockley, whom it alleged was an employee. The central issue was whether Shockley met the policy’s three-pronged definition of an 'employee,' which required compensation by the insured, the insured's right to govern and direct, and not being a broker or agent. The appellate court found that Special Term improperly relied on unsupported explanations regarding Shockley's compensation by Litchfield Park Corporation and failed to address whether this arrangement affected plaintiff's right to control Shockley or if Shockley acted as plaintiff's agent. Consequently, the order was reversed, and the motion for partial summary judgment was denied.

employee dishonestyinsurance policysummary judgmentcontract interpretationemployment definitionappellate reviewcompensationright to controlcorporate relationsembezzlement
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gross v. National Broadcasting Co., Inc.

Liz Gross sued her employer, National Broadcasting Company, Inc. (NBC), for sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law (NYSHRL). NBC moved for summary judgment, which the court granted, leading to the dismissal of Gross's claims. The court found many of Gross's claims to be time-barred, rejecting the application of the "continuing violation doctrine." For the timely claims, Gross failed to establish a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation, as she could not provide evidence of similarly situated male comparators for pay or demonstrate an adverse employment action or discriminatory animus. NBC successfully articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions, which Gross did not prove to be pretextual.

Sex DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentEmployment LawPay DisparityTimeliness of ClaimsContinuing Violation DoctrinePrima Facie CaseMcDonnell Douglas Framework
References
48
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04540
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2021

Garcia v. Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P.

David Garcia, an employee of Temperature Systems, Inc. (TSI), sustained personal injuries after falling from a ladder supplied by Emerick Gross Real Estate, L.P. (Emerick) while working at one of Emerick's properties. Garcia sued Emerick alleging violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, prompting Emerick to file a third-party action against TSI for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, denied both Garcia's and Emerick's motions for summary judgment, and TSI's cross-motion for summary judgment dismissing the third-party complaint. Additionally, the Supreme Court granted Garcia's cross-motion for discovery sanctions against Emerick for spoliation of evidence, determining that Garcia was entitled to a negative inference at trial due to the disposal of the ladder. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order in its entirety, concluding that triable issues of fact existed regarding whether Garcia was a recalcitrant worker and the sole proximate cause of his injuries, and whether the alleged contractual indemnification provision was enforceable.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevation-related HazardsSummary JudgmentContractual IndemnificationSpoliation of EvidenceNegative InferenceRecalcitrant WorkerProximate CauseSafe Place to Work
References
18
Case No. ADJ12896538
Regular
Sep 16, 2022

DEBORAH GROSS vs. THE BOEING COMPANY, SEDGWICK

Here's a concise summary for a lawyer: The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) denied Deborah Gross's Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the finding that her claim was barred by the statute of limitations. The WCJ found Gross failed to provide evidence or arguments demonstrating why the statute of limitations should not apply to her cumulative trauma claim filed over eight years after the alleged injury. Gross's submitted exhibits and cited case law were found to be either irrelevant, factually distinguishable, or unsupported by the record. The WCAB adopted the WCJ's report and incorporated it into their decision.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationDeniedStatute of LimitationsPro PerCumulative InjuryDate of InjuryAlleged InjuriesMedical TreatmentCase Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Abbondanzo

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a fight with a co-worker during business hours. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, noting that fighting with a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially given the claimant's prior admonishment for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace FightingDisqualificationEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrior Admonishment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Belmar

Claimant, a school guard for the New York City Board of Education, was terminated after failing to disclose an arrest and conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred during nonworking hours, but the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that his conduct constituted misconduct directly related to his position and posed a safety risk to students, thus disqualifying him from benefits. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that misconduct affecting integrity, even if off-duty, bears a relationship to employment under Labor Law § 593 (4). The court also held that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities does not exempt an individual from a finding of ineligibility for unemployment benefits due to misconduct.

MisconductUnemployment BenefitsCriminal ConvictionSchool GuardWeapon PossessionOff-Duty ConductCertificate of ReliefCivil DisabilitiesBoard of EducationPersonnel Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Board of Regents of University

Petitioner, a licensed optometrist in New York since 1981, faced eight specifications of professional misconduct between 1980 and 1985 while employed by American Vision Center. Charges included negligence, gross negligence, practicing beyond authorized scope by administering Neosporin, and unprofessional conduct for delegating responsibilities to unlicensed staff and failing to wear a name tag. A Hearing Panel found petitioner guilty, recommending a license suspension and fine. The Regents Review Committee modified these findings, and the respondent further narrowed the period of charges. Petitioner challenged the determination, alleging denial of due process due to lack of specificity and delay. The Court rejected the due process claims, finding charges specific and no actual prejudice from delay. While the Court found substantial evidence for negligence, unauthorized practice, and unprofessional conduct, it annulled the finding of gross negligence. Despite this annulment, the Court upheld the original penalty, modifying the determination only to reflect the removal of the gross negligence finding, and otherwise confirming the decision.

Optometry license suspensionProfessional misconductUnlicensed practiceDelegation of professional responsibilitiesGross negligenceDue processAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Education LawRegents Review Committee
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kagha v. Carter

Petitioner, a hospital courier, was discharged by respondent Westchester County Medical Center following sustained charges of misconduct, including 72 specifications of lateness, unauthorized absences, and failure to follow reporting procedures. Petitioner challenged the termination, asserting a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120 due to a reopened workers' compensation case and arguing a doctor's note justified his absences. The court rejected the Workers' Compensation claim, noting the Workers' Compensation Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and dismissed the doctor's note argument, emphasizing the employer's established call-in policy and petitioner's history of time and leave abuses. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, finding the penalty of discharge proportionate to the pattern of misconduct.

MisconductTermination of EmploymentCPLR Article 78Civil Service Law § 75Workers' Compensation Law § 120Time and Leave AbusesUnauthorized AbsenceCall-in PolicyJudicial ReviewPenalty Proportionality
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 754 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