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

Wing Shung Lam v. Chung-Ko Cheng

The case involves a labor dispute between plaintiffs, the Chinese Staff and Workers Association (CSWA) and its director Wing Shung Lam, and defendants, Jing Fong Restaurant and its shareholders. Plaintiffs sued for defamation and emotional distress, but a jury found no liability or awarded no damages. The trial court subsequently granted plaintiffs' motion for a new trial, citing juror misconduct based on alleged racial bias. This document is a dissenting opinion, arguing for the reversal of the trial court's decision. The dissent contends there was insufficient proof of racial bias affecting the verdict and that any claims of jury misconduct were waived by the plaintiffs' attorneys due to their failure to object during in-camera meetings. Additionally, the dissent disputes the trial court's findings regarding verdict inconsistency and whether the verdict was against the weight of the evidence.

Juror MisconductRacial BiasDefamationIntentional Infliction of Emotional DistressLabor DisputeVerdict ImpeachmentPosttrial AffidavitsWaiverInconsistent VerdictWeight of Evidence
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Abbondanzo

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a fight with a co-worker during business hours. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, noting that fighting with a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially given the claimant's prior admonishment for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace FightingDisqualificationEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrior Admonishment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Belmar

Claimant, a school guard for the New York City Board of Education, was terminated after failing to disclose an arrest and conviction for third-degree criminal possession of a weapon. The incident occurred during nonworking hours, but the Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that his conduct constituted misconduct directly related to his position and posed a safety risk to students, thus disqualifying him from benefits. The appellate court affirmed the decision, ruling that misconduct affecting integrity, even if off-duty, bears a relationship to employment under Labor Law § 593 (4). The court also held that a certificate of relief from civil disabilities does not exempt an individual from a finding of ineligibility for unemployment benefits due to misconduct.

MisconductUnemployment BenefitsCriminal ConvictionSchool GuardWeapon PossessionOff-Duty ConductCertificate of ReliefCivil DisabilitiesBoard of EducationPersonnel Review
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Meyerovich

The claimant, a maintenance technician, was discharged for misconduct after his manager observed him loafing on the job and he subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim for a back injury, which the employer alleged was false. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified the claimant from receiving benefits due to misconduct, a decision it adhered to upon reconsideration. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence in the manager's testimony that she did not observe the claimant using a shovel during her observation, thus supporting the finding of a false workers' compensation claim and misconduct. The court also noted that conflicting testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve and that prior Workers' Compensation Board decisions were not final regarding the accidental injury issue, thus lacking collateral estoppel effect.

MisconductUnemployment Insurance BenefitsFalse Workers' Compensation ClaimSubstantial EvidenceCredibility IssueDischarge from EmploymentLoafingProbationAppeal Board DecisionAffirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kagha v. Carter

Petitioner, a hospital courier, was discharged by respondent Westchester County Medical Center following sustained charges of misconduct, including 72 specifications of lateness, unauthorized absences, and failure to follow reporting procedures. Petitioner challenged the termination, asserting a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120 due to a reopened workers' compensation case and arguing a doctor's note justified his absences. The court rejected the Workers' Compensation claim, noting the Workers' Compensation Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and dismissed the doctor's note argument, emphasizing the employer's established call-in policy and petitioner's history of time and leave abuses. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, finding the penalty of discharge proportionate to the pattern of misconduct.

MisconductTermination of EmploymentCPLR Article 78Civil Service Law § 75Workers' Compensation Law § 120Time and Leave AbusesUnauthorized AbsenceCall-in PolicyJudicial ReviewPenalty Proportionality
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Shapiro

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that disqualified him from receiving benefits due to misconduct. This was the claimant's second application for reconsideration, seeking to submit new evidence regarding who closed the register early. The court affirmed the Board's denial of the second application, noting the claimant's failure to provide new evidence and his prior testimony admitting to the misconduct. The court found no abuse of discretion in the Board's decision.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductAppeal BoardReconsiderationAdministrative LawEvidenceJudicial ReviewEmployment TerminationDue ProcessClaimant Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Tandon

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to employment termination caused by misconduct. The record supported the finding that the claimant's discharge stemmed from misconduct, specifically his unauthorized reading of a memorandum regarding his job performance, despite prior warnings about using co-workers' property without permission. The court found that these actions were not inadvertent and were detrimental to the employer's interest. Consequently, the Board's decision was affirmed without costs.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductJob PerformanceUnauthorized Use of PropertyEmployment TerminationAppeal BoardBenefits DisqualificationAppellate DecisionWorkplace RulesEmployee Conduct
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Stolzenberg

Petitioner, an employee at Westchester County Medical Center, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Hospitals of Westchester County that terminated her employment for misconduct. The misconduct involved two incidents where she allegedly attempted to pull down male co-workers' trousers, violating sexual harassment policy and the Ethics Code. While the court upheld findings related to the sexual harassment policy, it found no basis for violating the Ethics Code, as the code lacked relevant provisions. Consequently, two specifications were dismissed, and the case was remitted for a reassessment of the penalty.

Employment TerminationMisconductSexual Harassment PolicyEthics CodeCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate CourtWestchester CountyCredibility Assessment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1999

In re the Claim of Petrocelli

The claimant was dismissed from her bookkeeper position after threatening a co-worker, a behavior she had been reprimanded for earlier. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that her employment was terminated due to misconduct, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. It noted that continuous threatening or harassing behavior despite employer warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court also clarified that the claimant's differing account of events merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve, which it was entitled to do.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductWorkplace threatsHarassmentEmployee dischargeCredibility issueAdministrative appealAppellate DivisionUnemployment Insurance LawEmployer warnings
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 1,332 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