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

International Fidelity Insurance v. Hartnett

The petitioner, a surety for Berlin Wrecking, Ltd., challenged a determination by the respondent that Berlin willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to 42 employees, totaling $442,713.10, along with a $110,668 civil penalty. The petitioner did not dispute the underpayment amount or the willful violation but argued for entitlement to monies withheld by the Dormitory Authority of the State of New York. The court affirmed the determination, stating that the CPLR article 78 proceeding was not the appropriate vehicle to determine the priority of claims to the withheld monies, as these issues were not raised at the administrative hearing. The court also found no merit in the petitioner's contention that the respondent exceeded jurisdiction by directing the Authority to issue a check for distribution to underpaid workers, citing Labor Law § 220-b (2) (e) as authorization.

Workers' RightsWage DisputePublic WorksSurety BondAdministrative ReviewCPLR Article 78Labor LawPrevailing WageCivil PenaltyUnderpayment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sainato v. Western Suffolk BOCES

The petitioner appealed a judgment dismissing his employment termination review petition due to improper notice of claim to Western Suffolk BOCES. The Supreme Court had previously denied leave to serve a late notice because the motion was made after the Statute of Limitations expired. The appellate court dismissed the appeal from an earlier decision, affirmed the judgment against the petitioner, and found the petitioner's remaining contentions without merit. This affirmed the requirement for proper and timely notice of claim in proceedings against school districts.

Employment TerminationCustodial WorkerCPLR Article 78Notice of ClaimEducation Law § 3813Statute of LimitationsLate Notice of ClaimAppellate ProcedureJudicial ReviewSchool District Liability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavez v. Regan

The petitioner, a linen clerk at Manhattan State Hospital, was injured on August 26, 1977, and subsequently discharged on September 15, 1978. She applied for accidental disability retirement benefits under section 63 of the Retirement and Social Security Law on September 28, 1982. The State Comptroller denied her application, citing untimeliness as it was not filed within two years of her discontinuation from service. The petitioner argued the time limitation was inapplicable due to lack of notice of termination, but the court found this contention without merit. The court affirmed that the two-year Statute of Limitations runs from actual termination, not notice thereof, and also noted that the petitioner was barred by laches from contesting her dismissal due to significant delay. Accordingly, the determination was confirmed and the petition dismissed.

Accidental DisabilityRetirement BenefitsStatute of LimitationsTimelinessEmployment TerminationLachesAdministrative ReviewState Comptroller DecisionWorkers' Compensation EligibilityPublic Sector Employment
References
4
Case No. OP 14-00510
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 14, 2014

EISENHAUER, JR.,, ROSCOE A. v. COUNTY OF JEFFERSON

Petitioner Roscoe A. Eisenhauer, Jr. initiated a proceeding under EDPL 207 to challenge the County of Jefferson's determination to condemn real property for expanding a public airport runway. The petitioner contended that the respondent failed to demonstrate an actual public use or benefit for the taking and that the taking was excessive. The court rejected these contentions, affirming that a public benefit existed and that the condemnor has broad discretion in determining the scope of the taking. The petitioner also argued that the respondent did not comply with EDPL 207 (4) and SEQRA, but the court found no error in the respondent's environmental review process. Consequently, the Appellate Division confirmed the respondent's determination and dismissed the petition.

Eminent DomainPublic UseCondemnationAirport ExpansionJudicial ReviewSEQRA ComplianceEnvironmental LawProperty RightsAppellate DivisionGovernmental Discretion
References
16
Case No. CA 10-02172
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2011

NEW YORK SCHOOLS INSURANCE RECIP, MTR. OF

The petitioner, New York Schools Insurance Reciprocal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Erie County, which denied its petition for a permanent stay of arbitration. Respondent Patricia Armitage sought arbitration after the petitioner denied her claim for no-fault insurance benefits. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the dispute involving the insurer's liability to pay first-party benefits is a matter for arbitration under Insurance Law § 5106 [b]. The court also rejected the petitioner's contention that the offset for workers' compensation benefits exceeding the monthly limit is not arbitrable and that the denial of a stay of arbitration denied its right to a loss-transfer claim from proposed additional respondents.

No-fault insuranceArbitrationWorkers' compensation offsetFirst-party benefitsAppellate reviewInsurance LawStay of arbitrationLoss-transfer claim
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Ward Leonard Electric Co. & Local 419, International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers

The petitioner moved to stay arbitration, arguing the respondent union's grievances were untimely and non-arbitrable as they involved the 'wage structure'. The court determined that the timeliness of the grievances was an issue for the arbitrator, not the court. Regarding arbitrability, the court found that the dispute over job content and evaluation, even if leading to wage increases, did not constitute a dispute over the fundamental 'wage structure' as excluded by the contract. The court concluded that the dispute fell within the arbitration agreement. Consequently, the petitioner's motion for a stay of arbitration was denied.

ArbitrationStay of ArbitrationTimelinessService of ProcessArbitrabilityContract InterpretationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievance ProcedureWage StructureJob Evaluation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. E. W. Smith Co.

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially granted a petitioner-respondent's application to stay arbitration demanded by respondents-appellants concerning obligations to welfare and pension funds under a collective bargaining agreement. This judgment was unanimously reversed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the broad arbitration provision in the agreement meant issues regarding contract termination, modification, or renewal were properly for the arbitrators to decide. Furthermore, the court found that disputes over obligations arguably created by an expired agreement would still be within the arbitrators' jurisdiction. The appellate court also dismissed the petitioner-respondent's contention regarding the respondents-appellants' lack of standing. Consequently, the motion for a stay was denied, and the parties were directed to arbitrate.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWelfare FundsPension FundsContract DisputesAppellate ReviewLabor LawFederal PreemptionStandingJudicial Reversal
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. Bid No. B1644
Regular Panel Decision

Acme American Refrigeration, Inc. v. New York City Department of Education

The petitioners, Acme American Repairs, Inc. and Acme American Refrigeration, Inc., initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging publicly bid contracts awarded by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) for the repair of cafeteria and kitchen equipment. They contended that these contracts constituted 'public work' under Labor Law § 220, mandating a prevailing wage schedule in the bid solicitation, which was absent. Petitioners argued this omission created a competitive disadvantage, as they purportedly based their bids on union-scale rates. The respondents moved to dismiss the petition as time-barred, asserting that the four-month statute of limitations began when petitioners became aware of the bid specification's contents (October/November 2010), not upon contract award (January 2011). The court granted the dismissal, ruling the petition was time-barred as the injury accrued when petitioners knew or should have known of the bid solicitation's contents.

CPLR article 78public workprevailing wagebid solicitationstatute of limitationstime-barredcontract disputeNew York City Department of Educationcompetitive biddingadministrative determination
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taj Airconditioning & Refrigerator Co. v. Goldin

Petitioner, a contractor, entered into a public works contract with the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation. The contract mandated the payment of prevailing wages and supplemental benefits to workers. Petitioner subcontracted work to Favorite Sheet Metal and Roofing Company, whose employees subsequently complained of being underpaid. An investigation and hearing found that petitioner's subcontractor failed to pay the required wages and benefits. The Hearing Officer ruled against the petitioner. Upon review, the agency's findings were supported by substantial evidence, rejecting the petitioner's argument for an apprentice wage scale and holding the petitioner liable for the subcontractor's non-compliance under Labor Law § 223.

Public Works ContractPrevailing Wage ViolationSupplemental BenefitsSubcontractor Non-ComplianceEmployer LiabilityApprentice Wage ScaleJourneyman RatePayroll IrregularitiesAdministrative Agency ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 3,373 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