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

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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parks v. Office of Temporary & Disability Assistance

Stephanie Parks filed a race discrimination lawsuit against her former employer, the New York State Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance (OTDA), under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. OTDA moved to dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing it was filed after Title VII's 90-day statute of limitations. The plaintiff received her EEOC right-to-sue letter around December 26, 2008, setting a March 26, 2009 deadline. While the complaint was formally filed on March 30, 2009, the court found it was timely, having been initially submitted to the Clerk on March 17, 2009, and returned only for a minor cover sheet correction. Citing rules against rejecting filings for mere form issues, the court denied the defendant's motion to dismiss, deeming the initial submission date as the filing date.

Race DiscriminationTitle VIIStatute of LimitationsSubject Matter JurisdictionTimeliness of FilingEEOC Right-to-SueFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureClerk's ErrorEmployment DiscriminationMotion to Dismiss
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mandel v. United States Office of Personnel Management

Michael Mandel sued the United States Office of Personnel Management (OPM) and two individual defendants, McCann and Crandell, alleging violations of the Privacy Act. The lawsuit stemmed from OPM's disclosure of Mandel's employment records to his former supervisors during an appeal to the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB), where Mandel challenged OPM's negative suitability determination for federal employment due to alleged falsification of records. Mandel moved for summary judgment, arguing OPM's disclosure was unlawful and caused him emotional distress and pecuniary loss, while defendants cross-moved, asserting a 'routine use' exception and lack of causation. The court denied Mandel's motion and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the disclosure fell within the Privacy Act's 'routine use' exception. Furthermore, the court found Mandel failed to establish a causal connection between the disclosure and his claimed adverse effects, concluding that his own falsification of documents was the cause. Finally, the claims against the individual defendants were dismissed as the Privacy Act does not permit suits against individuals.

Privacy ActSummary JudgmentRoutine Use ExceptionFederal EmploymentSuitability DeterminationMSPB AppealFalsification of DocumentsInformation DisclosureAdverse EffectCausal Connection
References
17
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gooshaw v. Wing

A disabled adult, relying on SSI and workers' compensation, relocated his mobile home to an undeveloped plot in Cortland County after eviction, lacking essential utilities. Faced with building code violations, he sought emergency assistance from the Cortland County Department of Social Services (DSS) for property improvements. DSS denied his application, recommending alternative housing, a decision affirmed by the Office of Temporary and Disability Assistance, which reasoned that his needs were foreseeable and not a sudden catastrophe. The court upheld this denial, confirming that the requested capital improvements fell outside the scope of emergency assistance for adults (EAA), which is intended for unforeseen events. It was concluded that the application was correctly assessed under emergency safety net assistance, which permits considering cost-effective alternatives, and the determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Emergency AssistanceDisabled AdultSupplemental Security IncomeWorkers' Compensation BenefitsMobile HomeBuilding Code ViolationsCapital ImprovementsSocial Services LawForeseeabilityCatastrophic Emergency
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Meadows v. Rosenblatt

Victoria Meadows, a Senior Office Assistant, filed grievances alleging unreasonable work assignments and discriminatory practices, claiming she performed out-of-title work by training a new supervisor. Her grievances were initially denied by the Director of Employee Relations, who found her duties consistent with her title. The IAS court vacated this determination, ruling in Meadows' favor and awarding salary differences. However, the appellate court reversed the IAS court's judgment, dismissed Meadows' petition, and reinstated the Director's original determination. The appellate court found a rational basis for the employer's decision, concluding that Meadows' duties were reasonably related to her Senior Office Assistant title and not out-of-title work.

Out-of-title workGrievanceCollective Bargaining AgreementJob dutiesEmployee trainingAppellate reviewRational basisPublic employmentSenior Office AssistantDiscriminatory practice
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Donegan v. Nadell

Petitioner Donegan, employed in Nassau courts since 1967, was promoted to Court Assistant II and began performing data entry duties following the installation of a computer system in 1973. However, the job specifications for her title did not include computer skills. When a new statewide classification plan was implemented, her position was converted to Principal Office Assistant, a title also lacking data entry duties. Donegan challenged this classification, arguing her actual duties warranted a classification as Data Entry Supervisor. Despite her grievance being partially granted and a provisional appointment to the data entry supervisor role, she was ineligible for permanent appointment due to not taking the required competitive examination. The court affirmed the administrative decision, emphasizing that civil service classifications must be based on "in-title" duties defined by job specifications, not "out-of-title" work performed, and that data entry skills required distinct competitive testing.

Civil Service LawJob ClassificationOut-of-Title WorkData Entry SupervisorPrincipal Office AssistantCourt AssistantPromotional ExaminationAdministrative ReviewJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,331 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