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. 2021 NY Slip Op 07401
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 23, 2021

Matter of Carola B.-M. v. New York State Off. of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Petitioners Carola B.-M. and Tiara M. challenged the denial of their supplemental nutrition assistance program (SNAP) benefits by the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance and the Orleans County Department of Social Services. The benefits were denied because they were deemed ineligible college students. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, reversed this determination, holding that participation in the Adult Career and Continuing Education Services, Vocational Rehabilitation program (ACCES-VR) qualifies as a Job Training Partnership Act (JTPA) program. This status exempts the students from certain SNAP eligibility requirements. The court found that the original determination was based on an unreasonable interpretation of relevant regulations, annulled the decision, granted the petition, and remitted the case for a calculation of retroactive benefits.

SNAP benefitscollege student eligibilityJob Training Partnership ActACCES-VRvocational rehabilitationCPLR article 78regulatory interpretationpublic assistancefood stampsAppellate Division
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 31, 1996

Castellano v. City of New York

Approximately 2,000 disabled former New York City police officers filed 16 consolidated actions, alleging that the practice of providing supplemental benefits to police officers who retire after twenty years of service while denying those same benefits to officers who retire due to a disability discriminates against them in violation of Titles I and II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act, and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA), as well as various state laws. The defendants, various individuals and entities involved in administering the New York City Police Department benefit programs, moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motions to dismiss, finding that the plaintiffs are not protected parties under the ADA and Rehabilitation Act, as they are not 'qualified individuals with a disability' and are seeking preferential rather than nondiscriminatory treatment. The ADEA claims were dismissed due to the plaintiffs' failure to file a complaint with the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission. Lastly, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims, leading to their dismissal as well.

Disability discriminationADA claimsRehabilitation Act claimsADEA claimsPolice officersRetirement benefitsSupplemental benefitsMotion to dismissQualified individual with a disabilityEmployment discrimination
References
61
Case No. 5674395Z
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2011

Baines v. Berlin

Mashon Baines, a homeless and disabled mother of three, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance's August 31, 2011 decision to discontinue her temporary housing assistance. This decision stemmed from an alleged altercation with a shelter director, Marilyn Gonzalez, during a fire drill, leading to Baines's arrest. Baines argued that her due process rights were violated because the discontinuance notice cited only the assault on Ms. Gonzalez, while the administrative decision was based on multiple uncharged wrongdoings and failed to adequately consider video evidence. The court found that respondents failed to adequately apprise Baines of all charges, thereby violating her due process rights, and consequently annulled the August 31, 2011 fair hearing decision. The court also granted Baines's request for attorneys' fees, costs, and disbursements.

Due ProcessAdministrative HearingHomeless AssistanceShelter BenefitsDiscontinuance of BenefitsNotice RequirementsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAttorneys' FeesSelf-Incrimination
References
8
Case No. 98-CV-1117 (LEK/RWS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 1998

Galusha v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. ENVIRON. CONSERV.

Plaintiffs, individuals with physical disabilities, sued the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, Adirondack Park Agency, and the State of New York, alleging that their policies in managing the Adirondack Park unfairly limit their access to certain areas in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). They sought a preliminary injunction to allow them to use motorized vehicles on restricted trails. The Court found that the defendants' policy had a disparate impact on disabled persons and that allowing limited, necessary motorized access on roads already used by non-disabled personnel would not fundamentally alter the Park program. Therefore, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, mandating access to specific roads for persons with certified mobility impairment disabilities.

Americans with Disabilities ActADAAdirondack ParkEnvironmental ConservationMotorized Vehicle AccessMobility ImpairmentPreliminary InjunctionDisparate ImpactPublic AccommodationsState Government Action
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schapiro v. New York City Department of Health

Plaintiff David B. Schapiro sued his former employers, the City of New York and its agency, the New York City Department of Health, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a common law negligence claim. Schapiro claimed he developed respiratory problems from poor workplace conditions between 1989 and 1994, arguing the City failed to provide reasonable accommodation. The City moved for summary judgment, contending Schapiro was not disabled under the ADA, his claims were time-barred, and he failed to mitigate damages, also asserting his negligence claim was preempted by New York's Worker's Compensation Law. The court granted the City's motion, ruling that several of Schapiro's claims were time-barred and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of disability under the ADA as his impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity like breathing or working. Furthermore, the court found Schapiro's negligence claim was exclusively covered by the New York Worker's Compensation Law.

Disability DiscriminationADASummary JudgmentRespiratory ProblemsWorkplace ConditionsReasonable AccommodationTime BarEEOCNegligence ClaimWorker's Compensation Law
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 02579 [193 AD3d 1305]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2021

Matter of New York Off. for People with Dev.al Disabilities (Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO)

The New York Office for People with Developmental Disabilities (petitioner) sought to vacate an arbitration award that reinstated employee Chad Dominie, who was found to have sexually harassed a coworker. The arbitrator had ordered Dominie's reinstatement despite sustaining multiple charges of sexual harassment, citing mitigating factors. Supreme Court granted the petition, vacating the award and remitting for a new penalty before a different arbitrator. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, holding that the arbitrator's unconditional reinstatement of Dominie violated the strong public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the egregious and escalating nature of Dominie's conduct, concluding that the award failed to protect other employees and conflicted with the employer's obligation to eliminate sexual harassment.

Sexual HarassmentWorkplace SafetyArbitration ReviewPublic Policy ViolationEmployee MisconductDisciplinary ProceedingsReinstatement OrderAppellate Court DecisionCollective BargainingEmployer Responsibility
References
9
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01108 [158 AD3d 965]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2018

Matter of Williams v. New York State Off. of Temporary Disability & Assistance

Claimant, Theresa J. Williams, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. She alleged an elevator door struck her, causing sprains and contusions. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and the Board disallowed the claim, finding she exaggerated the incident and her injuries did not arise from employment, based significantly on video surveillance that contradicted her account. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's authority to resolve factual issues and assess witness credibility. The court concluded that the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence and that there was no medical opinion establishing causation based on the incident as depicted in the video.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAccidental InjuryCourse of EmploymentCredibility AssessmentVideo Surveillance EvidenceElevator IncidentClaim DisallowanceBoard Decision AffirmationFactual Issue ResolutionSubstantial Evidence Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Julian v. New York City Transit Authority

Vera Julian, a pro se plaintiff, sued the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) after her employment termination and the denial of disability benefits. Julian sustained a back injury on the job in 1988, leading to a finding of permanent disability. Following bureaucratic errors regarding her termination and disability applications, she filed an Article 78 proceeding in state court, which resulted in a stipulation allowing her to reapply for benefits. However, her subsequent applications were denied. In this federal action, Julian alleged employment discrimination (race, gender, age, marital status, disability) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and ADEA, as well as conspiracy, retaliation, and due process violations. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that Julian failed to exhaust administrative remedies for discrimination claims, that her allegations were conclusory, and that state law provided adequate due process. The court also dismissed her state law claims, suggesting that her remedy lies in state court.

Employment DiscriminationDisability BenefitsTermination of EmploymentRes JudicataDue ProcessCivil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActRehabilitation ActWorkers' CompensationSocial Security Disability
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brownley v. Doar

Doris Brownley and Janee Nelson, single mothers receiving Safety Net Assistance (SNA), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent their evictions, arguing the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA) provided inadequate shelter allowances. They contended that Social Services Law § 159 incorporates the adequacy requirements of § 350 (1) (a) for families with children. The court denied OTDA's cross-motion to dismiss, ruling that plaintiffs had standing and were not required to exhaust administrative remedies due to the futility and risk of irreparable harm. Finding a likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm including potential homelessness and foster care for children, and a favorable balance of equities, the court granted the preliminary injunction, allowing the plaintiffs and their children to remain in their homes.

Shelter allowanceSafety Net AssistancePreliminary injunctionEviction preventionSocial Services LawHousing inadequacyPublic assistanceFamilies with childrenStandingAdministrative remedies
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Barrios-Paoli

The New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance denied the petitioner's application for special foster care benefits for her two foster children. The children were born prematurely, syphilitic, and addicted to crack cocaine, suffering from various physical and developmental conditions requiring a high degree of physical care and supervision. The respondents' finding that the children did not require such care was deemed not supported by substantial evidence. The court annulled the administrative determination, granted the petitioner's CPLR article 78 petition, and remitted the matter for further action consistent with its decision.

Foster Care BenefitsSpecial Needs ChildrenPhysical CareSupervisionDevelopmental DisabilitiesHyperactivityAttention Deficit DisordersRitalinSpecial EducationEmotionally Disturbed
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 14,869 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