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. 128
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 12, 2017

In the Matter of The Friends of P.S. 163, Inc v. Jewish Home Lifecare, Manhattan

This case involves two Article 78 proceedings challenging the New York State Department of Health's (DOH) State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) assessment for a new residential facility construction by Jewish Home Lifecare (JHL) in New York City. Petitioners, including parents of students at a nearby public school and local tenants, argued that DOH's assessment of environmental hazards, particularly lead dust and construction noise, was flawed and that mitigation measures were insufficient. The Supreme Court initially sided with petitioners, but the Appellate Division reversed, reinstating DOH's Findings Statement. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that DOH complied with its SEQRA responsibilities by taking a "hard look" at environmental concerns, assessing relevant hazards, and imposing adequate mitigation measures, rejecting petitioners' claims regarding flawed methodologies and insufficient protections.

SEQRAEnvironmental LawConstruction ProjectLead ContaminationAirborne DustNoise PollutionMitigation MeasuresPublic HealthArticle 78 ProceedingJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 27, 2003

Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Ass'n v. United States Air Force

Plaintiffs, including the Davis Mountains Trans-Pecos Heritage Association and individual landowners, challenged the United States Air Force's Realistic Bomber Training Initiative (RBTI) under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and the Noise Control Act (NCA). They alleged failures in adequately considering environmental impacts, evaluating alternatives, responding to public comments, and implementing mitigation measures. The Court denied Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment, concluding that the Air Force had taken a 'hard look' at environmental consequences, sufficiently addressed public concerns, and complied with NEPA's procedural requirements regarding alternatives, mitigation, and FAA involvement. The Court found the agency's decisions were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.

Environmental LawNEPANoise Control ActSummary JudgmentAdministrative Procedure ActJudicial ReviewAir Force TrainingEnvironmental Impact StatementRecord of DecisionAirspace Management
References
73
Case No. ADJ9361055
Regular
Dec 16, 2014

CODY GLEASON vs. MEASUREMENT DRIVEN REHABILITATION, AMTRUST

This case, Cody Gleason v. Measurement Driven Rehabilitation; Amtrust, resulted in the dismissal of the applicant's Petition for Reconsideration. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board found the petition was not timely-filed. The Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's Report and Recommendation. Therefore, the Petition for Reconsideration was dismissed.

Petition for ReconsiderationTimely-filedWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardAdministrative Law JudgeReport and RecommendationDismissedADJ9361055Measurement Driven RehabilitationAmtrustSan Diego District Office
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 1998

In re the Claim of Steates

The claimant, a social worker with 4.5 years of experience, resigned from her position, alleging ongoing harassment from co-workers and adverse working conditions were detrimental to her health. Despite her supervisor's attempts to mitigate the issues by reducing her caseload and suggesting a leave of absence, the claimant chose to resign. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. This decision was affirmed on appeal, with the court finding substantial evidence to support the Board's ruling, emphasizing that workplace conflicts do not automatically constitute good cause, especially when protective measures or medical consultations are not pursued.

Voluntary ResignationUnemployment BenefitsGood CauseWorkplace HarassmentCo-worker ConflictsHealth ConcernsAdministrative AppealDuty to MitigateLack of Medical Advice
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Shawangunk Mountain Environmental Ass'n v. Planning Board of the Town of Gardiner

This case involved an appeal challenging a negative declaration issued under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by the respondent, which approved a residential subdivision by intervenor Petone, Inc., in the Town of Gardiner, Ulster County. Petitioners argued that the project, a Type I action in an environmentally sensitive area, required an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) despite proposed mitigating measures. The court found that the procedure to issue the negative declaration, based on concessions from the developer, bypassed the necessary procedural safeguards of SEQRA, including public review and consideration of alternatives. The judgment reversed the lower court's dismissal, annulled the determination, and remitted the matter for further proceedings, mandating an EIS.

SEQRAEnvironmental ReviewNegative DeclarationType I ActionEnvironmental Impact Statement (EIS)Mitigating MeasuresSubdivision ApprovalLand UseAppellate ReviewJudicial Reversal
References
5
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06178
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2021

Mutual Aid Assn. of the Paid Fire Dept. of the City of Yonkers, N.Y., Inc. v. City of Yonkers

The plaintiff, a union representing firefighters in Yonkers, initiated an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Yonkers and other entities regarding the construction of a new firehouse for the Ridge Hill development. The plaintiff contended that the City defendants were in violation of SEQRA and other legal duties for failing to construct the firehouse. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, interpreting the SEQRA documents as mandating the firehouse. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division found that the SEQRA documents and City Council resolutions did not unambiguously require the construction of a new firehouse, but rather specified other mitigation measures. The court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment declaring in favor of the defendants.

State Environmental Quality Review ActSEQRADeclaratory Judgment ActionInjunctive ReliefMunicipal LawLand Use DevelopmentZoning BoardFire Protection ServicesMixed-Use DevelopmentAppellate Procedure
References
14
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 02965 [171 AD3d 567]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 18, 2019

Matter of Community United to Protect Theodore Roosevelt Park v. City of New York

Petitioners challenged the New York City Department of Parks and Recreation's approval of an addition to the American Museum of Natural History (Gilder Center), arguing that a Uniform Land-Use Review Procedure (ULURP) was not conducted and that environmental impacts (hazardous materials, construction noise) were not properly assessed under SEQRA and CEQR. The Supreme Court denied their petition, and the Appellate Division affirmed this decision. The Appellate Division found that ULURP was not required because the underlying property disposition and site selection occurred over a century ago. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Parks Department had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns, including addressing hazardous vapors and proposing mitigation measures for noise, thus satisfying its obligations under environmental review statutes.

Environmental ReviewULURPSEQRACEQRPark LandMuseum ExpansionPublic Land UseArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative LawAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jane P. v. John P.

This case concerns a plaintiff mother's petition to terminate the respondent father's visitation rights, alleging sexual molestation of their two young daughters. The court heard conflicting expert testimony regarding the allegations, including a court-appointed child psychiatrist who doubted the veracity of the abuse claims, suggesting they might have been orchestrated. After a thorough review, the court found that the plaintiff failed to establish the sexual molestation allegations by a fair preponderance of the credible evidence, largely relying on the independent expert's testimony. Despite finding no molestation, the court temporarily prohibited overnight visitation until May 31, 1987, as a transitional measure to mitigate further trauma to the children from the litigation. A review is scheduled for June 1, 1987, to consider the full restoration of the father's visitation rights.

Child Sexual Abuse AllegationsVisitation RightsExpert Witness TestimonyChild Sex Abuse SyndromeEvidentiary StandardsIn Camera InterviewCorroboration of Child StatementsCustody DisputesParental Influence on Child TestimonyForensic Child Psychiatry
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 1998

Wilkinson v. Planning Board of the Town of Thompson

The petitioners challenged the Town of Thompson's Planning Board and Town Board's environmental determination and approvals for a Wal-Mart 'super-center' project, which included a negative declaration of environmental impact, site plan approval, rezoning, and proposed abandonment of a road. The Supreme Court dismissed their petitions. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding that the Planning Board's negative declaration was not arbitrary or capricious, as it conducted a 'hard look' at environmental concerns and provided a 'reasoned elaboration.' The court also ruled that the mitigating measures incorporated by Wal-Mart during the review process did not constitute an impermissible conditioned negative declaration, as they were voluntary adjustments made to address identified concerns. Finally, the court agreed that the abandonment of Lanahans Road was justified under Highway Law § 212-a.

Environmental ReviewSite Plan ApprovalSubdivision ApprovalNegative DeclarationConditioned Negative DeclarationSEQRALand UseZoningRoad AbandonmentWal-Mart
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

White v. Orange Auto Center

Plaintiff White, a 63-year-old former service manager with a visual impairment, sued his previous employer, Orange Auto Center, his former supervisor, Clay Higgins, and their parent firms, E.T.Entities, alleging employment discrimination under the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) and Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), along with state tort claims. Defendants moved for summary judgment, contending that White's vision was not a protected disability due to mitigating measures and that his position was eliminated, not replaced, negating the age discrimination claim. Magistrate Judge Hines recommended denying the motion, finding genuine issues of material fact regarding whether White's vision substantially limited major life activities even with aids, and whether his termination was age-discriminatory given evidence of replacement by younger employees and age-related remarks. District Judge Heartfield adopted this report and recommendation, thereby denying the defendants' motion for summary judgment and allowing White's claims to proceed. The case highlights the nuanced interpretation of 'disability' under the ADA and the burden-shifting analysis in age discrimination cases.

DiscriminationAge DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationADAADEASummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal CourtTexasMagistrate Judge
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 386 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