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
Aug 16, 2012

Frigault v. Town of Richfield Planning Board

Petitioners, local citizens and property owners, challenged the Town of Richfield Planning Board's grant of a special use permit to Monticello Hills Wind, LLC for a six-wind turbine project. The challenge, a combined CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action, alleged violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), Open Meetings Law, Town Law, and local ordinances. The Supreme Court annulled the negative declaration and special use permit due to Open Meetings Law and Town Law violations, though it upheld the SEQRA review. On cross-appeals, the higher court reinstated the negative declaration, finding the Board's SEQRA compliance sufficient and any Open Meetings Law violation did not warrant annulment. However, the special use permit's annulment was affirmed, as the Board failed to provide proper notice to the County Planning Department and lacked a rational explanation for compliance with the Town's special use permit ordinance.

Environmental Quality ReviewSpecial Use PermitWind TurbinesPlanning BoardOpen Meetings LawTown LawNegative DeclarationSEQRA ReviewJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 13, 1973

Vic's Auto Body & Repair v. Granito

This case concerns an Article 78 proceeding challenging the denial of a special exception permit for an automobile body and fender repair shop. Initially, the Supreme Court, Nassau County, annulled the denial and directed the issuance of the permit. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, reinstating the appellants' original determination and dismissing the petition. The appellate court found that the appellants' denial was supported by evidence of potential noise, fumes, visual blight from wrecked cars, the residential nature of the vicinity, and the severe negative impact on a neighboring medical practice. The court concluded that the proposed use failed to meet the standards for a special exception permit.

Special Exception PermitZoning DenialAutomobile Repair ShopNuisanceResidential CharacterMedical Practice ImpactCPLR Article 78Abuse of Discretion ReviewProperty ValueAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 19, 1989

Orange Environment Inc. v. Jorling

The petitioner, a nonprofit corporation, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to renew a landfill permit for Al Turi Landfill, Inc. The permit extension allowed expanded use and acceptance of incinerator ash without requiring a supplemental environmental impact statement (SEIS). The petitioner contended that DEC failed to conduct a thorough environmental review. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition. On appeal, the court affirmed the dismissal, ruling that DEC had taken a "hard look" at the environmental concerns and provided a reasoned basis for not requiring an SEIS. The appellate court also found that DEC was not obligated to consider cumulative impacts in the absence of a comprehensive development plan and that the permit renewal was consistent with the department's aquifer protection policy.

Environmental LawLandfill PermitSEISNegative DeclarationAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Environmental Impact AssessmentGroundwater ContaminationAppellate ReviewPermit Renewal
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Golten Marine Co. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The case involves petitioners, neighboring businesses, appealing a judgment concerning construction permits for 20th Century Recycling, Inc. The Supreme Court, Queens County, annulled negative declarations by the DEC and permits issued by the DEC and NYC Department of Health. The appellate court affirmed this annulment, finding that the DEC failed to comply with the New York State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). Specifically, the DEC omitted crucial environmental concerns like traffic, zoning, and community character in its initial negative declaration, a violation of SEQRA mandates (6 NYCRR 617.11). A subsequent 'amended negative declaration' was deemed insufficient to retroactively validate the invalid environmental review, as SEQRA requires literal compliance.

Environmental LawSEQRAConstruction PermitsNegative DeclarationJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78ZoningTraffic ImpactCommunity CharacterRegulatory Compliance
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frangella Mushroom Farms, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

The petitioner, who operates a mushroom growing farm in the Town of Coeymans, sought a special use permit to construct an apartment building for its migrant laborers. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, citing concerns related to aesthetic harmony, property values, safety, and traffic. However, the court found the Board's 17 specific findings to be arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient evidence in the record. The court determined that the proposed housing would not adversely affect the district and would replace existing substandard dwellings without increasing population or traffic. Consequently, the court annulled the Board's determination and mandated the issuance of the special use permit.

Zoning OrdinanceSpecial Use PermitArbitrary and CapriciousLand Use PlanningMigrant HousingAgricultural OperationsJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Town of CoeymansAlbany County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 14, 2011

In re Giannis F.

The Family Court in Bronx County granted an application for a child to testify at a fact-finding hearing via two-way closed-circuit television, subject to cross-examination. This decision was affirmed by the Appellate Division. The court properly balanced the respondent mother’s due process rights with the emotional well-being of the child in permitting the child to testify outside their presence. An affidavit from a social worker, detailing multiple interviews with the child and consultations with another social worker, sufficiently established the potential trauma. An evidentiary hearing was deemed unnecessary as the mother failed to present evidence challenging the social worker's assessment or expertise.

Child TestimonyClosed-Circuit TelevisionSexual AbuseDue ProcessEmotional Well-beingSocial Worker AssessmentFamily CourtAppellate DivisionEvidentiary HearingTrauma
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Thea T.

The Suffolk County Attorney's Office, on behalf of Suffolk County Child Protective Services, filed an application seeking an order to direct the Law Guardian to permit a third interview of 11-year-old Thea T., who alleges sexual abuse by her father. The County also sought the Law Guardian's cooperation with pretrial preparation. The Law Guardian opposed the request for a third interview, citing potential harm to the child, who had already undergone two previous interviews. The court applied a two-prong test, weighing the County's asserted need against the potential harm to the child. Finding the County's justification for a third interview conclusory and lacking an articulable basis, and balancing this against the potential for intimidation and embarrassment to the child, the court denied both applications.

Child Protective ServicesChild InterviewLaw Guardian RoleFamily Court ActDiscovery DisputePretrial PreparationChild WelfareVulnerable WitnessEvidentiary StandardBalancing Test
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1990

North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. v. Janoski

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Town Board of Riverhead's determination to grant a special permit for a condominium development to Mill Pound Commons. The petitioner argued that the environmental impact statements were defective because the Town Board failed to consider the cumulative environmental effects of the project with other proposed projects in the Saw Mill Creek basin and did not consider archaeological impacts. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, affirmed the Town Board's decision, finding that the projects were not "reasonably related" for a mandatory cumulative impact review and that archaeological impacts were not raised or supported during the review process. The court emphasized that a Critical Environmental Area designation alone does not mandate a cohesive framework for cumulative impact review and that new issues cannot be raised after the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement process.

Environmental Impact StatementSEQRACumulative Impact ReviewSpecial PermitCondominium UseTown Board DeterminationCritical Environmental AreaArchaeological ResourcesPublic CommentCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. 04 Civ. 8255(WHP)
Regular Panel Decision

Bray v. City of New York

The City of New York sought a preliminary injunction to prevent Critical Mass bicycle rides from occurring without permits, filing a counterclaim under New York General City Law § 20(22). The counterclaim alleged violations for gathering in Union Square Park without a Parks Department permit and engaging in a bicycle procession without a parade permit. Plaintiffs, Critical Mass cyclists, opposed the injunction and moved to dismiss the counterclaim. The court declined supplemental jurisdiction over the Parks Department permit claim, finding it unrelated to the plaintiffs' federal claims. While possessing supplemental jurisdiction over the parade permit claim, the court ultimately declined to exercise it due to novel questions of state law and principles of comity, emphasizing that state courts are better suited to interpret local regulations. Consequently, the City's motion for a preliminary injunction was denied, and the plaintiffs' motion to dismiss the amended counterclaim was granted without prejudice.

Critical MassBicycle RidesParade PermitsSpecial Event PermitsInjunctionSupplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsFederalismComityNew York City Administrative Code
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 1989

Ava Land Development, Inc. v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment dismissing a CPLR article 78 petition. Petitioners sought to reverse a Department of Finance determination denying them partial real property tax exemption benefits under the Industrial and Commercial Incentive Program (ICIP). The denial was based on Administrative Code § 11-259 (c), which requires ICIP applications before building permit issuance. Petitioners had obtained building permits nine months prior to applying for ICIP benefits. The court found the Department's determination rational because the permits were renewals issued after Workers’ Compensation Law compliance, and no additional permits were required for construction.

Real Property TaxTax ExemptionICIPBuilding PermitsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewNew York CityDepartment of FinanceWorkers' Compensation Law ComplianceCPLR Article 78
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 498 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