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. 2025 NY Slip Op 02920 [238 AD3d 876]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

Matter of Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Nassau County

The Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc. (the Union) appealed an order that denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from a grievance alleging that Nassau County violated a collective bargaining agreement by not crediting compensatory time to Union members working during a COVID-19 state of emergency. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the County, and the Supreme Court confirmed this award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards. The court found that the Union failed to prove the award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their power, as the award was supported by the record and based on an interpretation of the CBA.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75VacaturAppellate ReviewLabor DisputeCOVID-19Nassau CountyCompensatory TimeContract Interpretation
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00069 [223 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2024

Matter of County of Nassau v. Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers' Benevolent Assn.

The County of Nassau appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had concluded that the County violated a collective bargaining agreement by denying General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits to correction officers who missed no work time but sought medical treatment for work-related injuries or illnesses. The Supreme Court initially denied the County's petition and granted the union's cross-petition to confirm the award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this order, finding the arbitration award to be irrational because the claimants neither sought payment of salary/wages nor reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses, thus not requiring the benefits outlined in General Municipal Law § 207-c. Consequently, the County's petition to vacate the arbitration award was granted, and the cross-petition to confirm was denied.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCollective Bargaining AgreementGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCorrection OfficersMedical BenefitsLost TimePublic Policy ExceptionIrrational AwardAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05995 [142 AD3d 1003]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 14, 2016

Matter of Carver v. Nassau County Interim Fin. Auth.

This case addresses a challenge to wage freezes imposed by the Nassau County Interim Finance Authority (NIFA) on Nassau County employees. NIFA was established to manage the County's fiscal crisis and declared a

Wage FreezeFiscal CrisisNassau County Interim Finance AuthorityPublic Authorities LawCollective Bargaining AgreementsCPLR Article 78 ProceedingStatutory InterpretationAppellate DivisionControl PeriodInterim Finance Period
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

The Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) initiated an action against the County of Nassau, seeking a declaratory judgment regarding the proper salary plan for CETA-funded employees who transitioned to county-funded positions after January 1, 1977. CSEA contended that these workers, having commenced service prior to the cut-off date, were 'employees' under existing collective bargaining agreements and should remain on the 'Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan A). The County argued they were 'new employees' after 1976, falling under the 'Non-Incremental Graded Salary Plan' (Plan B). The court reviewed the federal CETA legislation, the collective bargaining agreement, and the County's past conduct towards CETA workers, which consistently treated them as county employees with various benefits. Concluding that CETA workers qualified as 'employees' from their initial service date, the court ruled in favor of CSEA. The decision mandates that these workers be continued under Plan A, citing principles of statutory parity, established case law, and the policy goals of the CETA program for upward mobility.

Collective BargainingSalary PlansCETA ProgramPublic EmploymentEmployee RightsDeclaratory JudgmentCivil Service LawUnion RepresentationStatutory InterpretationGovernment Employees
References
2
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02096
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

Matter of Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Nassau County

John Thomas, a correction officer, sustained a back injury in 1998 and subsequently received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. After periods of restricted duty and military service, medical evaluations in 2009 determined he was unfit for any duty, reinstating his benefits. However, in February 2010, a County-appointed doctor deemed him fit for light-duty work, leading the Nassau County Sheriff's Department to discontinue his benefits. Thomas and his labor union challenged this decision, arguing a due process violation due to the hearing officer placing the burden of proof on Thomas to demonstrate his unfitness. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's dismissal, concluding that Thomas was afforded due process as he had the opportunity to present evidence and requiring him to support his claim of continued total disability was permissible.

CPLR Article 78 ProceedingGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c BenefitsDue Process RightsBurden of ProofLight-Duty AssignmentCorrection Officer InjuryDiscontinuation of BenefitsAppellate ReviewProperty InterestCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Friel v. County of Nassau

The plaintiff, Barbara Friel, a female police officer, sued the County of Nassau and Nassau County Police Department, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Her claims were brought under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. §§ 1981 and 1983, the United States Constitution, the NYSHRL, and a breach of collective bargaining agreement. Friel alleged that a change in extradition policy, requiring detectives to be the same gender as detainees for certain transfers, disproportionately affected female detectives by reducing assignments and overtime. She also claimed retaliation for opposing the policy, citing a computer usage audit and denial of extradition requests. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss claims related to gender discrimination under § 1983 and Title VII, retaliation under § 1983, and breach of contract, but granted the motion to dismiss NYSHRL claims and the Title VII retaliation claim due to procedural issues.

Gender DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISection 1983Equal Protection ClauseFirst AmendmentCollective Bargaining AgreementMotion to DismissEmployment LawPolice Department
References
108
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 28, 2000

DiCamillo v. County of Nassau

An unnamed plaintiff was injured during employment on premises leased by Nassau County. A jury initially found Nassau County negligent and awarded the plaintiff $544,000 in damages. Nassau County appealed, contending that the jury should have been allowed to consider the liability of a nonparty coemployee, Richard Ribarik, and apportion liability to him. The Appellate Division, Second Department, agreed, citing pre-1996 amendments to CPLR 1601 and 1602. The court clarified that Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 does not prevent considering a nonparty coemployee's culpability for apportionment purposes. Consequently, the judgment was reversed, and the case was remitted to the Supreme Court, Nassau County, for a new trial solely on the apportionment of liability between Nassau County and Richard Ribarik.

Personal InjuryApportionment of LiabilityNonparty LiabilityCPLR 1601CPLR 1602Workers' Compensation Law § 11Coemployee NegligenceProspective ApplicationJudgment ReversalRemand for New Trial
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1990

United States v. County of Nassau

The case involves the United States and the State of New York (Regulators) moving to hold the County of Nassau and its Department of Public Works (Nassau) in contempt of a Consent Decree or to modify it, due to Nassau's failure to comply with sludge management milestones. Nassau cross-moved to compel payment from a trust account. The court found Nassau in violation of the Decree's provisions but denied the contempt motion because Nassau was paying stipulated penalties. The court also denied the Regulators' motion to modify the Decree by increasing penalties, citing that the existing penalties were agreed upon and additional fines would be punitive against taxpayers. Finally, the court denied Nassau's cross-motion for trust fund disbursement, supporting EPA's decision to withhold funds until Nassau complies with the Decree's construction requirements. The court affirmed that Nassau must pay stipulated penalties for the first day of non-compliance.

Environmental LawConsent DecreeSewage Sludge ManagementOcean Dumping Ban ActStipulated PenaltiesCivil ContemptContract InterpretationMunicipal LawTrust FundsEPA Enforcement
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liss v. Nassau County

Barry Liss filed claims against Nassau County and its departments, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL. Liss sustained work-related injuries and was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, requiring accommodations for working at heights and in hot temperatures. He contended that the defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations, leading to further injuries. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the ADA claims, finding them not time-barred and issues of fact regarding reasonable accommodation and qualification. However, state law claims for NYSHRL and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with punitive damages, were dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to file a timely Notice of Claim and the non-recoverability of punitive damages against municipal defendants.

ADANYSHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationFailure to AccommodateEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNassau CountyMultiple Sclerosis
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 6,637 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