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

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. Dkt. # 6, Dkt. # 7
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2013

Crayton v. Astrue

Plaintiff appeals the denial of supplemental security income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits in 2009, alleging inability to work due to various medical conditions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the application, and the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. The District Court reviews the Commissioner's decision, finding that while the ALJ's assessment of exertional limitations was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ failed to apply the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) in analyzing non-exertional limitations. Consequently, the court remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically for proper application of the PRT.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgePsychiatric Review TechniqueRFCExertional LimitationsNon-exertional LimitationsDepressionAnxiety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Vera v. Low Income Marketing Corp.

The court modified an order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, partially granting the plaintiff's motion against defendant Low Income Marketing Corp. (LIMC) and denying LIMC's motion to dismiss. It affirmed the lower court's decision that a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no employment relationship was not preclusive due to different statutory definitions of 'employment.' The court found that plaintiff Claudio Vera was 'employed' under the Labor Law, entitling him to partial summary judgment against LIMC, the owner. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Skyline Scaffolding Group, Inc., dismissing common-law negligence and cross claims against it, as there was no evidence it created the scaffold defect. The final decision modified the order to grant Skyline's motion and otherwise affirmed it.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationEmployment DefinitionIndependent ContractorOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorNegligence
References
10
Case No. 286/10
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiffs Delores Jackson, Shawn Jackson, and Odamis Villa initiated a lawsuit against Defendant Bank of America, alleging that the bank unlawfully froze their accounts in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), CPLR 5222-a. The plaintiffs contended that the bank failed to provide required exemption notices and claim forms, improperly aggregated funds from multiple accounts, and closed accounts without due process, thereby denying them access to statutorily exempt funds. Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the EIPA does not confer a private right of action for debtors against banks and that its actions were supported by documentary evidence. The court reviewed the defendant's evidence, which was found to support the plaintiffs' allegations, and concluded that an implied private right of action exists under the EIPA, aligning with its legislative intent to protect vulnerable account holders. Consequently, the court denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims and also ruling against the bank's preemption argument.

Exempt Income Protection ActCPLR 5222-aPrivate Right of ActionImplied Right of ActionBank Account RestraintJudgment Debtor RightsConsumer ProtectionMotion to DismissPreemptionBanking Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gill v. Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I

Daniel E. Gill, Thomas C. McDermott, and Jay T. Holmes, retired Bausch & Lomb (B & L) executives and participants in the B & L Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I (SERP I), challenged the termination of their monthly benefits and conversion to lump sums following a change of control at B & L. The court found that B & L Human Resources personnel acted as unauthorized fiduciaries in 2007 by interpreting the plan and terminating benefits. The subsequent 2008 decision by the Compensation Committee was also found flawed due to structural conflicts of interest, procedural violations, and abdication of fiduciary responsibility. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the termination of benefits and lump-sum payments violated ERISA and vacated both decisions.

ERISA LitigationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentConflict of InterestPlan AdministrationBenefit DenialChange of ControlLump Sum PaymentsProcedural Violations
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Massey v. Evans

This case addresses whether military allowances, specifically Basic Allowance for Housing (BAH) and Basic Allowance for Subsistence (BAS), should be included as 'income' for calculating child support obligations under New York law. The respondent father argued against their inclusion, citing their exclusion from federal taxable income and claiming they don't confer personal economic benefits. The court rejected these arguments, emphasizing the broad definition of 'income' within the Child Support Standards Act (CSSA) and the distinct objectives of tax law versus child support. It concluded that BAH and BAS provide direct or indirect personal economic benefits and are uniformly considered income for child support in other states. Consequently, the court affirmed the lower court's decision to include these military allowances in the father's income.

Child SupportMilitary AllowancesIncome ImputationBAHBASNew York LawFamily Court ActDomestic Relations LawParental Support ObligationNontaxable Benefits
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 24, 2012

In re the Claim of Schiavo

The claimant, a 70.5-year-old member of Teamsters Local 456, began receiving pension income in 2007 while still employed. After being laid off in December 2010, he sought unemployment insurance benefits. His benefits were subsequently reduced to zero under Labor Law § 600 (7) due to his pension income. The Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld this determination. The claimant appealed, arguing that Labor Law § 600 (7) was either inapplicable or unconstitutional as applied, given that his pension was a mandatory distribution and he was ready to work. The court disagreed, affirming previous decisions that found the reduction of unemployment benefits due to employer-funded pension income to be rational and consistent with the law's purpose of providing income to unemployed workers without earned income.

Unemployment benefitsPension incomeLabor Law § 600(7)Benefit reductionConstitutionalityMandatory distributionAppellate DivisionThird DepartmentUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardEarned income
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 426 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