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

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cohen v. Chu

This CPLR article 78 proceeding involved a petitioner, an insurance agent, challenging a determination by the State Tax Commission that he was liable for unincorporated business taxes for 1979 and 1980. The central issue was whether the petitioner functioned as an employee or an independent contractor for Provident Mutual Life Insurance Company. The court considered various factors, including the contract, company-provided resources, benefits, and the petitioner's ability to broker insurance with other companies. The decision emphasized the petitioner's ability to earn a significant portion of his income from other companies as substantial evidence supporting the determination that he was an independent contractor. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination of the State Tax Commission and dismissed the petition.

Independent ContractorTax AssessmentUnincorporated Business TaxInsurance AgentEmployer-Employee RelationshipState Tax CommissionJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceProvident Mutual Life Insurance CompanyTax Law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 1993

Hart v. Holtzman

This case involves a CPLR article 78 petition challenging a determination made by the Comptroller of the City of New York. The Comptroller had ruled that rehabilitation and construction work on the Greenpoint Hospital site, despite being publicly financed, was for privately-owned and constructed housing for low-income tenants, thus not constituting "public works" under New York State Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the Comptroller determined that workers on these projects were not entitled to prevailing wages. The Supreme Court affirmed the Comptroller's decision, finding it had a rational basis and was neither arbitrary nor capricious. The appellate court further affirmed, emphasizing that the primary objective of the work, not incidental public benefit or significant governmental funding, determines if a project is a "public work" subject to prevailing wage requirements, especially when private developers retain ownership and construction risk.

Public WorksPrevailing WageLabor Law § 220Comptroller DeterminationCPLR Article 78 PetitionRational Basis ReviewPrivate ProjectsGovernmental FundingConstruction ContractsAppellate Division
References
2
Case No. E2014-00717-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2015

Heather Walker Sellers v. Billy Joe Walker

This case concerns the modification of a child support award. The trial court determined the self-employed father's income based on deposits into his personal bank account rather than his federal tax returns. The appellate court affirmed the trial court's method of determining income based on bank deposits and the mother's income determination. However, the appellate court reversed the trial court's child support calculation due to a mathematical error in the father's income calculation and its failure to consider his self-employment taxes. The case was remanded for recalculation of child support based on the correct monthly income for the father and consideration of self-employment taxes.

Child Support ModificationIncome DeterminationSelf-Employment IncomeBank Deposits as IncomeTax Returns vs. Bank DepositsRule 59 MotionAppellate ReviewMathematical ErrorSelf-Employment TaxesChild Support Guidelines
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Communications Workers v. SBC Disability Income Plan

This case addresses defendants' motions to dismiss the Communications Workers of America, AFL-CIO (CWA) as a party-plaintiff. CWA and Rene Anzaldua initiated the lawsuit to challenge the denial of Mr. Anzaldua's long-term disability benefits under the SBC Disability Income Plan, citing violations of the Employees Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA). Defendants argued that CWA lacked standing, as ERISA limits plaintiffs to 'participants,' 'beneficiaries,' or 'fiduciaries,' none of which apply to CWA. The court analyzed statutory definitions and rejected CWA's claims of derivative or associational standing, highlighting the necessity of individual member participation for benefit determination. Furthermore, the court found that Mr. Anzaldua adequately represented the union's interests. Consequently, the motions to dismiss CWA as a party-plaintiff were granted.

ERISAStanding to SueLabor UnionsDisability BenefitsMotion to DismissStatutory ConstructionEmployee BenefitsLong-Term DisabilityAssociational StandingFederal Jurisdiction
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 1996

Sawyer v. Budrow (In Re Budrow)

Mona Y. Sawyer filed an adversary proceeding against Mr. and Mrs. Budrow, seeking to except a $72,000 debt from discharge or to deny their general discharge under Chapter 7 of the Bankruptcy Code. The debtors, appearing pro se, were found to have committed multiple violations. These included intentionally omitting numerous creditors, including the IRS, operating a business and collecting receivables without authorization post-petition, failing to maintain adequate financial records for their businesses and personal affairs, and making false oaths in their bankruptcy petition regarding assets and income. The Court determined that the debtors engaged in a knowing scheme to conceal substantial income and assets through alleged family trusts. Consequently, the Court denied the debtors' general discharge based on multiple grounds under § 727(a) of the Bankruptcy Code.

Bankruptcy LawChapter 7Discharge ObjectionFraudulent ConcealmentFalse OathsDebtor MisconductFailure to Keep RecordsUndisclosed AssetsIRS DebtPro Se Representation
References
6
Case No. M2010-02173-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2011

In Re: Brittany M. A.

This case involves an appeal from the Juvenile Court of Wilson County concerning child support and parental custody. The father filed a petition to become the primary residential parent and sought to establish child support. The Trial Court granted temporary custody to the father and determined the mother's annual income to be not less than $90,000 for child support calculations. The mother appealed this income determination. The Court of Appeals concluded that the Trial Court abused its discretion because the evidence did not support the income level set. Consequently, the appellate court modified the mother's annual income downward to $52,000 and remanded the case to the Trial Court for recalculation of retroactive and prospective child support.

Child SupportIncome DeterminationAbuse of DiscretionAppellate ReviewParental CustodyEvidentiary FoundationModification of JudgmentChild Support GuidelinesImputed IncomeResidential Parent
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hobbs v. Lavine

Petitioner's home relief assistance was discontinued by the New York City Department of Social Services based on a finding that she was fully employed. This determination was affirmed by the respondent after a hearing. The court found that the respondent's determination was not supported by substantial evidence, as the city agency's evidence consisted only of two vague case-record entries. Consequently, the application was granted, and the determination was annulled, with petitioner's assistance directed to be reinstated retroactively.

Home ReliefPublic AssistanceSocial ServicesEmployment StatusSubstantial EvidenceArticle 78 CPLRAdministrative ReviewRetroactive BenefitsDiscontinuation of Benefits
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 12,251 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