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
Mar 20, 2001

Claim of Derr v. VIP Structures

The claimant, who had a work-related permanent total disability, was convicted of assault in March 1999 and subsequently incarcerated. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the claimant was not entitled to benefits during his incarceration after the conviction of a crime. The claimant appealed this decision, arguing for continued benefits due to his total disability and resulting lack of earning capacity, regardless of his incarceration status. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the suspension of workers’ compensation benefits during incarceration after a criminal conviction is based on public policy, and this principle applies to both partial and total disabilities. The court concluded that suspending benefits in such circumstances does not conflict with the Workers’ Compensation Law's goals.

IncarcerationWorkers' Compensation BenefitsTotal DisabilityPublic PolicyAssault ConvictionBenefit SuspensionCriminal ConductAppellate ReviewDisability Benefits
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioners challenged the Broome County Legislature's negative declaration of environmental impact for a proposed public safety facility, which included a 400-bed jail and other county offices in the Town of Dickinson, Broome County. The proposed complex was classified as a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), presumptively requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court initially annulled the negative declaration but denied injunctive relief. This appellate court affirmed the annulment of the negative declaration and further directed respondents to investigate and discuss the storage of petroleum/chemical products and sewage treatment capacity within the required EIS, modifying the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also upheld the denial of petitioners' request for injunctive relief, noting that SEQRA mandates environmental review completion before any construction.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementPublic Safety FacilityBroome CountyCPLR Article 78Cross AppealsAnnulmentInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In the Interest of S.K.A., M.A., and SA., Minor Children

Chad appeals a default judgment terminating his parental rights, raising constitutional challenges to appellate procedures and substantive issues. He was incarcerated in Mississippi and alleged a denial of timely appointed counsel, which impacted his ability to file a timely statement of points for appeal. The court found that the statutory procedural bar (Family Code § 263.405(i)) was unconstitutional as applied to Chad as an indigent parent who was not provided counsel during the critical period for preserving appeal points. Despite this, the court deemed Chad's late-filed statement of points timely but ultimately overruled his points of error regarding the default judgment and the sufficiency of evidence for termination. The court found sufficient evidence to support the termination of Chad's parental rights due to endangering conduct (drug use, re-incarceration, domestic violence, anti-social behavior) and determined that termination was in the children's best interests given their complex needs and Chad's history of instability.

Parental Rights TerminationDefault JudgmentDue ProcessRight to CounselConstitutional LawTexas Family CodeChild NeglectAppellate ProcedureIncarcerated ParentStatement of Points
References
106
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1990

North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. v. Janoski

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Town Board of Riverhead's determination to grant a special permit for a condominium development to Mill Pound Commons. The petitioner argued that the environmental impact statements were defective because the Town Board failed to consider the cumulative environmental effects of the project with other proposed projects in the Saw Mill Creek basin and did not consider archaeological impacts. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, affirmed the Town Board's decision, finding that the projects were not "reasonably related" for a mandatory cumulative impact review and that archaeological impacts were not raised or supported during the review process. The court emphasized that a Critical Environmental Area designation alone does not mandate a cohesive framework for cumulative impact review and that new issues cannot be raised after the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement process.

Environmental Impact StatementSEQRACumulative Impact ReviewSpecial PermitCondominium UseTown Board DeterminationCritical Environmental AreaArchaeological ResourcesPublic CommentCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bohlke v. General Electric Co.

Plaintiffs, former employees, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against their former employer under the Human Rights Law, asserting claims based on both disparate treatment and disparate impact theories. The defendant contested the disparate impact claims, arguing they were not recognized under New York law. While the Supreme Court initially ruled in favor of the plaintiffs regarding discovery and amendment, the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court determined that disparate impact claims are not cognizable under the New York Human Rights Law for age discrimination when the protected class is defined as broadly as individuals aged 18 and over, making it impossible for a subgroup (e.g., over 40) to demonstrate disparate impact on the entire class. Consequently, the court dismissed the disparate impact claims and denied the plaintiffs' motion to amend their complaint. Additionally, the appellate court reversed a sua sponte discovery order by the Supreme Court, citing a lack of notice and opportunity for the defendant to be heard on those specific demands.

Age DiscriminationDisparate ImpactDisparate TreatmentHuman Rights LawEmployment LawReduction in ForceDiscoveryAppellate ReviewNew York LawProtected Class
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

United States v. E.L.

Defendant E.L. pled guilty to one count of possession of child pornography. Despite United States Sentencing Guidelines recommending 51 to 63 months imprisonment, Judge Jack B. Weinstein imposed a non-incarceratory sentence of five years of probation with strict conditions. This decision was largely based on extensive medical and expert testimony, which indicated that E.L. poses an almost zero risk of re-offending, especially with his ongoing participation in psychological and sex offender treatment. The court highlighted the significant negative impact incarceration would have on E.L.'s family and his progress in treatment, while emphasizing the importance of individualized sentencing assessments. This ruling also aligned with broader concerns from the Sentencing Commission and various courts regarding the severity and applicability of child pornography guidelines for non-production offenses.

Child pornographySentencingProbation18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)United States Sentencing GuidelinesSex offender treatmentRecidivism riskForensic psychiatryObsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD)Depression
References
43
Case No. WCB #G093 3039
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2023

Matter of Pickering v. Car Win Construction, Inc.

The claimant, a bus operator, sustained a compensable right knee injury. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially found that the claimant's incarceration did not preclude causally related medical treatment. The employer/carrier sought reconsideration, arguing that the claimant lacked attachment to the labor market and that incarceration should not be considered a disability. The Board Panel granted reconsideration and modified the WCLJ's decision. They determined that indemnity payments should be suspended during the period of incarceration because the disability was due to incarceration rather than the work injury, but affirmed that causally related medical treatment remains compensable.

Workers' CompensationRight Knee InjuryIncarcerationIndemnity PaymentsMedical TreatmentCausally Related DisabilityLabor Market AttachmentReconsiderationBoard Panel DecisionSuspension of Benefits
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gregory B. v. Gregory F.

This consolidated appeal addresses whether incarcerated parents "permanently neglected" their children under Social Services Law § 384-b (7) (a), thus justifying the termination of parental rights. In Matter of Gregory B., the father, incarcerated since 1980, proposed long-term foster care for his children until his release, which was rejected. Similarly, in Matter of Willie John B. and Matter of Delores B., the father, incarcerated since 1979, also offered indefinite foster care after relatives were found unwilling or unable to provide care. The Court of Appeals affirmed the termination of parental rights in all cases, holding that while 1983 statutory reforms acknowledged special circumstances for incarcerated parents, they did not excuse them from planning for their child's future. The Court concluded that indefinite foster care is not a "viable plan" as it is inconsistent with the purpose of foster care and deprives children of the essential permanency required for proper growth and development.

Permanent NeglectParental Rights TerminationIncarcerated ParentSocial Services LawFoster CareAdoptionChild WelfareFamily LawCourt of AppealsJudicial Review
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2010

In re Alicia G.

The case concerns a petition for permanent neglect filed by Heartshare Human Services against Hanna Muhammad and Al G., the incarcerated parents of Alicia. The court examined whether the agency made diligent efforts to strengthen the parental relationship and if the parents adequately planned for Alicia's future, considering their incarceration. The petition against the mother, Hanna Muhammad, was dismissed as the agency failed to convincingly prove a lack of planning or cooperation. However, the petition against the father, Al G., was granted due to his failure to plan, with his disposition adjourned to a later date. The decision highlights the nuanced application of Social Services Law § 384-b for incarcerated parents.

Permanent NeglectIncarcerated ParentsSocial Services LawParental Rights TerminationDiligent EffortsParental PlanningFoster CareChild WelfareNew York Family LawChild Best Interests
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 785 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