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

Walsh v. Katz

This case addresses a constitutional challenge to a residency requirement for a town justice/town board member position on Fishers Island, Town of Southold, Suffolk County. Petitioners, Fishers Island residents Arthur J. Walsh and Nina J. Schmid, objected to respondent Daniel C. Ross's candidacy because he did not meet the specific residency criteria. The Appellate Division upheld the statute's constitutionality, applying a rational basis test. Ross appealed, advocating for a strict scrutiny standard and arguing that the residency requirement violated equal protection by diluting voter influence. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, concluding that the rational basis test was appropriate given the indirect impact on voting rights, and found a rational basis in ensuring meaningful representation for the geographically unique Fishers Island community.

Constitutional LawElection LawResidency RequirementEqual Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewStrict ScrutinyTown JusticeTown Board MemberFishers IslandSouthold
References
15
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07661 [155 AD3d 1150]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2017

Matter of Weissenburger v. Annucci

Kyle A. Weissenburger appealed a judgment that dismissed his CPLR article 78 petition. Petitioner sought to annul the Department of Corrections and Community Supervision's denial of a certificate of good conduct (CGC), which would restore his rights to hold public office and possess firearms following a 2008 driving while intoxicated conviction. The Department denied the application, deeming it inconsistent with public interest due to petitioner's history of mental health and substance abuse issues. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding a rational basis for the denial, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed this decision, concluding that the reliance on petitioner's offense, conduct, and history of health and substance abuse provided a rational basis for the denial.

Certificate of Good ConductCPLR article 78 proceedingCorrection LawPublic InterestDWI convictionForfeiture of rightsMental health historyAlcohol abuseAdministrative reviewAppellate review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morrison v. Hoberman

Petitioners and intervenors-petitioners appealed a judgment dismissing their petitions for reclassification from the title of Oiler to Oiler (Portable). The Civil Service Commission had amended the Oiler classification in 1964, creating Oiler (Portable) with a higher wage rate. Petitioners, employed by the City of New York, sought similar reclassification after Oilers in the Department of Sanitation were reclassified, but their demand was refused. After a trial court found a rational basis for the refusal, this court reversed that decision. The court found no rational basis for the distinction, determining that the duties, qualifications, and tools used by all Oilers were essentially the same, and the wage differential was based on private industry distinctions not applicable to city employment. The judgment appealed from was reversed, vacated, and the petitioners were granted the relief demanded.

ReclassificationOilerOiler (Portable)Oiler (Stationary)Civil ServiceWage DifferentialEmployment DutiesRational BasisAppellate ReviewJob Classification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp. v. Diamond

P & C Giampilis Construction Corp., a low bidder for two city roofing contracts, had its bids rejected by municipal respondents for failing to meet experience requirements. The IAS Court initially sided with Giampilis, deeming the rejection arbitrary by stating the experience of the Giampilis brothers in a companion corporation should be considered. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, affirming that the municipal respondents had a rational basis for rejecting the bids. The court highlighted that judicial review of administrative determinations is limited to assessing if there was a rational basis for the decision. It concluded that the bids were non-responsive as the corporate petitioner itself did not meet the specific experience criteria outlined in the bid documents, and there was no legal obligation to 'pierce the corporate veil' to consider the experience of a companion corporation.

Bid RejectionPublic ContractsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewCorporate VeilContract BiddingExperience RequirementsGovernment ProcurementNew York LawAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cleary v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a substitute school teacher, sought retroactive membership in the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System after the enactment of Retirement and Social Security Law § 803. Respondent, her employer, denied her application. Petitioner then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court granted, annulling the Hearing Officer's determination due to lack of a rational basis. The respondent appealed this decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the Hearing Officer's finding that the petitioner participated in a procedure requiring a formal decision to join the retirement system lacked a rational basis, as the evidence presented by the respondent, including W-4 forms, personnel notations, and general office practice testimony, was insufficient to meet the burden.

Retroactive membershipTeachers’ Retirement SystemCPLR article 78Rational basis reviewStandard office practiceEvidence sufficiencyConstitutional challengeSubstitute teacherPublic retirement systemNew York law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. 12-0657
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2015

Ashish Patel, Anverali Satani, Nazira Momin, Minaz Chamadia, and Vijay Lakshmi Yogi v. Texas Department of Licensing and Regulation

This dissenting opinion addresses a challenge by eyebrow threaders (petitioners) to Texas' cosmetology licensing scheme, which requires 750 hours of training for an esthetician license. The petitioners argue that these requirements are excessive and violate substantive due process, lacking a rational connection to public health and safety. Chief Justice Hecht's dissent argues against the majority's decision to strike down the regulation, contending that while the regulation might be 'injudicious' as policy, it is not unconstitutional. The dissent asserts that the regulation is rationally related to the state's legitimate interest in protecting public health and safety, citing potential health risks from hair removal and similar regulations in other states. It criticizes the majority for creating an 'oppressive' standard for substantive due process, departing from the established rational basis test and risking judicial overreach into legislative policy-making.

Economic LibertyDue ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessRational Basis TestCosmetology RegulationEyebrow ThreadingJudicial ActivismPolice PowerTexas ConstitutionOccupational Licensing
References
26
Case No. GA-0561
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 14, 2007

Untitled Texas Attorney General Opinion

Under the terms of the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Code, a pool hall may operate on a BYOB ("bring your own bottle") basis without a permit or license from the Texas Alcoholic Beverage Commission. Moreover, the City of Corsicana may not by municipal ordinance regulate the possession or consumption of alcoholic beverages within a pool hall that operates on a BYOB basis.

BYOB regulationAlcoholic Beverage CodeMunicipal ordinancesState preemption doctrinePool hall operationsAlcoholic beverage licensingPermit requirementsDry areasWet areasPrivate club status
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04379 [32 NY3d 982]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 14, 2018

Matter of Natasha W. v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The Court of Appeals reversed an Appellate Division order, dismissing the petition in a case where Natasha W. was placed on the Child Abuse Register for attempted shoplifting with her five-year-old child. The Court found a rational basis for the Administrative Law Judge's conclusion that the child was in imminent risk of impairment due to maltreatment and that Natasha W.'s actions were relevant to childcare employment. The dissent argued that there was no 'imminent danger' as required by statute and that the ALJ's prediction of future harm was speculative and lacked factual basis, criticizing the majority for creating a per se rule of neglect without specific proof of harm.

Child MaltreatmentShoplifting IncidentAdministrative ReviewRational Basis TestArbitrary and CapriciousImminent DangerChild Neglect DefinitionFamily Court ActSocial Services LawChild Abuse Register
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08749 [178 AD3d 1174]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 05, 2019

Matter of Panchame v. Staples, Inc.

The claimant, Miriam Panchame, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision that denied her application for review. The Board denied the application because it found the claimant failed to comply with 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1), specifically by responding "n/a" to question 15 on the RB-89 form, which asks for the objection or exception interposed to a WCLJ ruling. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, finding a rational basis for the Board's determination that the application was incomplete. The court acknowledged its own discretion to disregard the incomplete application but upheld the Board's decision, citing its lack of authority to overturn a rationally based Board determination.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAdministrative AppealProcedural ComplianceBoard RulesRB-89 ApplicationClaimant BenefitsLabor Market AttachmentTemporary Partial DisabilityDue Process
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,625 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