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

Lamb v. Town of Esopus

Petitioner, employed as a building department aide since 2001, challenged respondent's decision to eliminate her full-time position in January 2005, replacing it with two part-time roles, which respondent claimed was for economy and efficiency. She initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking reinstatement, back pay, and benefits, but the Supreme Court dismissed her application. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed. The court found that the petitioner failed to demonstrate continuous employment in a noncompetitive class for five years, which would grant Civil Service Law protection, and did not prove that the elimination of her position was motivated by bad faith or subterfuge. Furthermore, the court concluded that the respondent adhered to the doctrine of legislative equivalency, as the position was created and abolished by the same legislative means.

CPLR article 78Civil Service LawPublic employmentPosition eliminationReinstatementEconomy and efficiencyLegislative equivalency doctrineBad faithAppellate reviewGovernment restructuring
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. Positive Productions

Jonathan Smith, known as Lil Jon, petitioned the District Court to vacate or modify an arbitration award in favor of Positive Productions, a Japanese concert promoter. The dispute arose from Smith's failure to perform three concerts in Japan as per initial and rescheduled agreements, leading to their cancellation. The International Centre for Dispute Resolution arbitrator, Mark Diamond, awarded Positive Productions $379,874.00 for lost profits, expenses, legal fees, and loss of reputation. Smith argued improper notice of arbitration, lack of arbitrator jurisdiction, and manifest disregard of New York law regarding damages. The District Court, presided by Judge Mukasey, denied Smith's petition and granted Positive Productions' cross-petition to confirm the award, finding that Smith received sufficient notice, the arbitrator had jurisdiction, and the damage awards were justified under the law.

Arbitration AwardContract BreachLost ProfitsExpensesReputation DamagesAttorneys' FeesNoticeJurisdictionFederal Arbitration ActNew York Law
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Koss v. Wackenhut Corp.

This case concerns a class action brought by Robert Koss and other employees (Nonsupervisory and Supervisory subclasses) against their former employer, The Wackenhut Corporation, and the International Union of Security, Police, and Fire Professionals of America (SPFPA) and Local 151. The core dispute revolved around the non-payment of a "Stay Bonus" which was intended for employees whose positions were eliminated during the transfer of security services from Wackenhut to Entergy, Inc. Plaintiffs alleged breach of the Labor Management Relations Act, New York Labor Law claims, and violations of ERISA. The District Court found that the contractual conditions for the Stay Bonus — specifically, the elimination of positions and termination of employment — were not met, as all affected employees who applied successfully secured new positions with Entergy. Consequently, the court denied the Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the Defendants' cross-motions for summary judgment on all claims, determining that the Stay Bonus did not qualify as an employee benefit plan under ERISA.

Class ActionSummary JudgmentLabor LawBreach of ContractERISAStay BonusCollective Bargaining Agreement (CBA)Duty of Fair RepresentationEmployment TerminationNonsupervisory Employees
References
16
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Laverack & Haines, Inc. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case concerns an age discrimination complaint filed by employee George Burns against his former employer, Laverack & Haines, Inc., following the elimination of his job during company downsizing. The State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) and the Appellate Division initially ruled in favor of Burns. However, the New York Court of Appeals reversed, finding that while Burns established a prima facie case of age discrimination, the employer successfully rebutted it by demonstrating that the termination was due to severe economic downturns and the elimination of the Claims Manager position across all branch offices. The Court emphasized that an employer is not legally obligated to create new positions or displace other employees to retain a terminated employee due to economic restructuring. Consequently, the Court granted the employer's petition, annulled the SDHR determination, and dismissed Burns's complaint.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationCompany DownsizingEconomic ConditionsPrima Facie CaseEmployer RebuttalNon-discriminatory ReasonHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewNew York Court of Appeals
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

King v. Bailar

Katie King, a black female employee of the U.S. Postal Service since 1959, filed an action against the Postmaster General, alleging racial and sex discrimination. Her claims centered on two events: the elimination of her Administrative Assistant position in December 1972, leading to reassignment at a lower grade and salary, and the appointment of a white female as a junior stenographer in March 1973. The court found that King's position elimination and transfer were part of a widespread reorganization and staff reduction program within the Postal Service, affecting many employees without discriminatory intent. Furthermore, the court concluded that the subsequent hiring of Eva Gross, a white female, was due to personnel shortages and not discriminatory, especially given King's rejection of two similar job offers at higher salaries. Therefore, the complaint was dismissed on its merits, with judgment entered in favor of the defendant.

Racial DiscriminationSex DiscriminationFederal EmploymentPostal ServiceEmployment ReorganizationStaff ReductionEqual Employment OpportunityCivil Rights ActTitle VIIDiscrimination Claim
References
3
Case No. Dkt. # 13
Regular Panel Decision

Eustace v. Corning, Inc.

Plaintiff, a former employee of Corning, Inc., was terminated in a 2009 reduction in force (RIF) and subsequently filed a lawsuit alleging age discrimination under the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) and fraud. She claimed her position was eliminated due to age and she was replaced by a younger worker. Corning moved for summary judgment, arguing her claims were barred by a Release she signed as part of a severance package and/or that she lacked sufficient evidence for discrimination. The court granted Corning's motion, finding the Release valid and enforceable, as it complied with the Older Workers Benefit Protection Act and plaintiff retained the severance benefits. The court further determined that plaintiff's former position was genuinely eliminated and the new 'Team Leader' role was distinct. It also noted that decision-makers were older, had previously promoted plaintiff, and statistical evidence did not support discriminatory animus. The complaint was dismissed with prejudice, as no reasonable fact-finder could conclude that Corning's actions were a pretext for age-based discrimination or that age was the 'but-for' cause of termination.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentReduction in ForceADEARelease of ClaimsOlder Workers Benefit Protection ActPretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkFraud Claim
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bregman v. Harrolds

The petitioner, Ona Bergman, a Psychiatric Social Worker II for Onondaga County, sought reclassification of her position from salary grade 12 to 13 and a grievance hearing. The Special Term directed the respondent, Louis Harrolds, Commissioner of Personnel of Onondaga County, to hear the grievance. However, the Appellate Division found that position classification and salary allocations are not subject to review as grievances under the Onondaga County Grievance Procedure. The court modified the order, treating the petition as an application for position reclassification under rule XXIII of the Onondaga County Rules for Classified Service, requiring the Commissioner to determine if duties have changed. The dissenting judges argued that the court was ordering actions already taken and that reclassification and salary are the sole prerogative of the county legislature, not subject to judicial interference. The final decision modified the order and, as modified, affirmed it.

ReclassificationGrievance ProcedureArticle 78PersonnelSalary AllocationJudicial InterferenceDiscretionary ActCounty LawClassified ServiceOnondaga County Rules
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2001

Markow-Brown v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a former full-time Social Worker whose position was eliminated in 1995, sought appointment to two half-time positions (Social Worker and Civil Service Drug and Alcohol Counselor II) after declining a previous offer, arguing they collectively equated to her former full-time role. The positions in question were ultimately filled by respondent William Polchinski. The Supreme Court dismissed the proceeding based on the doctrine of primary jurisdiction, referring the matter to the Commissioner of Education to determine if the positions were similar. This dismissal was subsequently affirmed on appeal, with the court citing the Commissioner's specialized expertise in resolving such factual issues under Education Law § 3013 (3) (a).

Primary JurisdictionCPLR Article 78Education LawPublic SchoolsSocial WorkerCivil ServiceEmployment LawAdministrative LawSuffolk CountyJob Appointment
References
4
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05187
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2015

Matter of Grant v. Town of Lewisboro

Lawrence Grant, a parks maintenance worker for the Town of Lewisboro, had his position abolished when the Town adopted its 2012 budget, eliminating funding. Grant initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the termination violated Civil Service Law § 75 and sought reinstatement with back pay. The Town presented evidence that the position was abolished in good faith due to budget reductions to promote efficiency and economy. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied Grant's petition, finding he failed to prove the Town acted in bad faith. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town properly abolished the position through budget enactment and Grant did not raise a triable issue of fact regarding bad faith.

Abolition of PositionCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Bad FaithMunicipal BudgetPublic EmploymentParks Maintenance WorkerWestchester CountyAppellate Division
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 1,044 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