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

Lash v. Blum

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the Commissioner of the New York State Department of Social Services to reduce the petitioner's public assistance benefits. The reduction was based on an alleged fraudulent failure to report workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner's husband. The court annulled the Commissioner's determination, finding that the claim of willful withholding was unsupported by evidence, as the agency had prior notice of the benefits. Additionally, the court ruled that recoupment was improper because the funds were no longer an available resource after being used to repay a loan, and the agency's notice of intent was constitutionally deficient. The petition was granted, benefits were ordered restored, and the matter was remitted for a determination on counsel fees.

Public AssistanceAid to Dependent ChildrenOverpayment RecoupmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsDue ProcessNotice RequirementsWillful WithholdingAvailable ResourcesCPLR Article 78Appellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dormeyer v. McCall

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the respondent's denial of performance of duty disability retirement benefits. The denial stemmed from the petitioner's failure to provide the mandatory written notice under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c (e) (a). The court found that the petitioner did not preserve the 'good cause' exception issue for review as it was not raised during the administrative hearing. Furthermore, the court upheld the respondent's determination that oral notice to the employer was insufficient to satisfy the Workers’ Compensation Law exception. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Disability RetirementPerformance of Duty BenefitsNotice RequirementsAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewPreservation of IssuesGood CauseWorkers' Compensation ExceptionOral NoticeDetermination Confirmation
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Miller v. North Shore University Hospital

Claimant, a registered nurse, allegedly exacerbated an abdominal injury in September 1994 while at work, but did not file a workers' compensation claim until May 1996, after undergoing surgery. The workers' compensation carrier subsequently controverted the claim, citing untimely notice. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that the claimant failed to provide timely notice to the employer as mandated by Workers’ Compensation Law § 18. On appeal, the court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the emergency room report was insufficient to constitute proper notice. Furthermore, the claimant did not meet his burden of proving that the employer was not prejudiced by the delay in notice, as the delay prevented an investigation prior to his surgery.

Timely NoticeEmployer KnowledgePrejudiceAbdominal InjuryRegistered NurseAccident ReportEmergency RoomSurgeryAppellate ReviewWorkers' Compensation Law § 18
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acevedo v. City of New York

Petitioners, 110 New York City firefighters involved in World Trade Center rescue efforts after 9/11, sought permission to file late notices of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e due to toxin exposure and subsequent respiratory illnesses. The City of New York objected, citing improper joinder of claims and lack of reasonable excuse or actual notice. The court found that common questions of law and fact allowed for joinder of the claims. Furthermore, the court determined that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts surrounding the claims due to public awareness, extensive investigations, and internal Fire Department medical examinations, thus suffering no prejudice from the delayed filing. Consequently, the petition was granted, allowing the firefighters to serve and file their late notices of claim.

World Trade Center9/11FirefightersLate Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal LawRespiratory IllnessToxic ExposureJoinder of ClaimsActual NoticePrejudice
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brian VV. v. Chenango Forks Central School District

Petitioners filed a notice of claim after their six-year-old daughter was allegedly sexually assaulted on a school bus. The respondent, a school district, subsequently served a notice to orally examine the infant and petitioners. While petitioners submitted to examination, they refused to produce their child. The Supreme Court initially granted petitioners’ motion to strike the notice to examine the infant, deeming prior informal interviews with the child as substantial compliance. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, emphasizing that General Municipal Law § 50-h mandates a pre-action examination as a condition precedent. The court ruled that the prior interviews did not fulfill the statutory purpose and that the child's submission to an examination is required. Due to the child's young age, the matter was remitted to the Supreme Court to conduct a hearing to determine the child's competency to testify under oath before the examination takes place.

General Municipal Law § 50-hEducation Law § 3813Infant examinationSexual assault claimCondition precedentAppellate procedureCompetency hearingSchool district liabilityPre-action discoveryOath requirement
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Colarossi v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted the plaintiff's motion for leave to serve a late notice of claim. However, this decision was unanimously reversed on appeal, and the motion was subsequently denied. The appellate court determined that the plaintiff's reliance on law office failure did not constitute a reasonable excuse for the delay in serving the notice of claim. Additionally, the plaintiff failed to establish that the City had actual notice of the essential facts within the mandated 90-day period or a reasonable time thereafter, as a Workers’ Compensation Board C-3 form provided by the employer did not link the incident to any claim against the City. Furthermore, the court noted that the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the City remained unprejudiced by the significant delay, particularly given the transitory nature of the alleged defective condition.

Late Notice of ClaimLaw Office FailureActual NoticePrejudiceWorkers' Compensation Board FormC-3 FormMunicipal LiabilityAppellate ReviewDiscretionary RulingReversal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McDonald-Besheme v. Verizon Wireless, Inc.

Claimant, an operations specialist, was injured in a fall in March 2003 and subsequently filed a claim for workers’ compensation benefits. The employer failed to file a notice of controversy within the 25-day statutory period after receiving the notice of indexing on August 1, 2003. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge found the employer's notice untimely, precluding the employer from contesting the employer-employee relationship or that the injury arose out of employment. The Workers’ Compensation Board upheld this determination, as the employer did not demonstrate good cause for the delay. The employer appealed, but the court affirmed the Board’s decision.

Late Notice of ControversyEmployer LiabilityTimeliness of FilingAppeal DecisionAdministrative ReviewStatutory ComplianceDiscretionary PowersAbsence of Good CausePreclusion of DefenseWorkplace Injury Claim
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Margiasso v. Levitt

This case involves a petitioner's application for accidental disability retirement benefits, which was denied by the State Comptroller. The petitioner, a police officer for the City of Syracuse, claimed total and permanent disability due to arthritis resulting from a motorcycle accident in 1951. His application was filed in 1976, and denied due to the petitioner's failure to file notice of the accident with the Comptroller, as required by subdivision c of section 363 of the Retirement and Social Security Law. The court confirmed the Comptroller's determination, noting that the petitioner did not personally file the notice and no good cause was shown for the omission. The court also rejected the argument that notice to the employer, who had actual knowledge, sufficed under the Workers’ Compensation Law, as the employer did not provide compensation coverage.

Accidental Disability Retirement BenefitsPolice Officer DisabilityNotice of Accident FilingRetirement and Social Security LawWorkers' Compensation Law NoticeArthritis DisabilityState Comptroller DeterminationJudicial Review CPLR Article 78Employer Knowledge of AccidentCompensation Coverage Requirement
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Lury v. Beame

This case addresses the interpretation of Civil Service Law, § 210 (the Taylor Law), concerning the timing of salary deductions for public employees who engage in a strike. Specifically, it clarifies when a chief executive officer's "determination" of a strike and its participants is considered final, triggering the 30- to 90-day window for payroll deductions. The dispute arose when 370 sanitation workers were served notice of Taylor Law violations significantly later than an initial determination date. The lower courts ruled the deductions time-barred, considering the initial determination date as the start of the 90-day period. However, the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the determination is not final for individual employees until they are identified by name or provided with notice of their violation. The Court emphasized that notice must be given "forthwith" after identification of individual strikers.

Taylor LawPublic EmployeesStrike PenaltiesPayroll DeductionsStatutory InterpretationTimeliness of NoticeChief Executive Officer DeterminationCivil Service LawSanitation WorkersNew York
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 11,651 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