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. 2018 NY Slip Op 06537 [165 AD3d 667]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 03, 2018

Matter of Heritage Mech. Servs., Inc. v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

This case involves an appeal by Heritage Mechanical Services, Inc. (petitioner) from a judgment denying its petition to annul a determination by the Suffolk County Department of Public Works (DPW). The dispute stemmed from a general construction contract awarded to Posillico/Skanska, JV for a waste water treatment plant upgrade. Heritage was listed as a subcontractor for HVAC work, but a disagreement arose over the agreed-upon amount, with Heritage claiming a higher price for alternates not included in the initial bid figure. DPW approved Posillico's request to perform the HVAC work itself, citing Heritage's refusal as a 'legitimate construction need' under General Municipal Law § 101 (5). The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding DPW's determination was not arbitrary and capricious, affected by an error of law, or an abuse of discretion, and thus dismissed the proceeding.

Public Works ContractSubcontractor DisputeGeneral Municipal LawCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousProject Labor AgreementHVAC SubcontractBid DisputeContractual Interpretation
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Acosta v. Wollett

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding where public employees (petitioners) challenged a determination by the Director of Employee Relations that they engaged in an illegal strike. The employees refused to work at a temporary office location ("Ben's") citing unsafe and substandard conditions, including lack of heating, electrical hazards, and limited exits, and the absence of a certificate of occupancy. While they performed other clerical work, they refused to process unemployment claims at Ben's. The court found their refusal to work at the assigned location, despite their safety concerns, constituted a work stoppage or slowdown in violation of the Civil Service Law, affirming the initial determination and dismissing their petitions. A dissenting opinion argued that the employees' actions were driven by a genuine and reasonable fear for their safety due to the deplorable working conditions.

Public Sector Labor DisputeStrike ProhibitionEmployee Safety ConcernsSubstandard Workplace ConditionsCPLR Article 78 ReviewTaylor Law ViolationWork StoppageCertificate of OccupancyPublic Employee UnionsConcerted Activity
References
3
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08382 [155 AD3d 1049]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2017

Matter of Soliman v. Suffolk County Dept. of Pub. Works

Nader I. Soliman, a Senior Civil Engineer for Suffolk County Department of Public Works, was terminated after an arbitration award found him guilty of misconduct for accessing unauthorized, sexually explicit websites during work hours. Soliman petitioned the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, to vacate the arbitration award, but the court denied the petition, dismissed the proceeding, and confirmed the award. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that Soliman failed to demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that the arbitration award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their powers.

MisconductArbitration AwardVacaturCPLR Article 75Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentTerminationEmployee MisconductRationality of AwardArbitrator Powers
References
10
Case No. 533112
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Reyes v. H & L Iron Works Corp.

A claimant appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision which found he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a and permanently disqualified him from future indemnity benefits. The claimant, Leonel Reyes, sustained work-related injuries in 2016 and received benefits. However, he failed to fully disclose his disc jockey activities and the physical nature of this work to the Board, carrier, and examining physicians while collecting benefits. Surveillance videos showed him lifting heavy equipment, contradicting his testimony. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's finding of a violation and the imposition of both mandatory and discretionary penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the violation and that the permanent forfeiture of indemnity benefits was not a disproportionate penalty given the claimant's multiple egregious misrepresentations.

Workers' Compensation Law § 114-aFalse RepresentationIndemnity BenefitsPermanent DisqualificationUndisclosed EmploymentDisc JockeyMaterial MisrepresentationSubstantial EvidenceWitness CredibilityDiscretionary Penalty
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Monroe

The claimant, a truck driver, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits after refusing a work assignment. The claimant declined the assignment to attend a co-worker's grievance hearing, despite not being requested to attend. The employer warned that refusal constituted insubordination, leading to discharge. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld the disqualification, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The court noted that refusing reasonable work assignments can be disqualifying misconduct and found no error in the Board's resolution of credibility issues or denial of subpoenas for irrelevant witnesses.

unemployment insurancemisconductinsubordinationrefusal of work assignmentappellate reviewcredibility determinationdue processadministrative lawemployee dischargework assignment
References
4
Case No. ADJ8270156
Regular
Oct 10, 2014

JORGE PRECIADO vs. ALAMILLO REBAR, INC.; OLD REPUBLIC GENERAL INSURANCE

This case involves an employer seeking reconsideration of an award of temporary disability indemnity to the applicant for an industrial injury. The employer argued that the medical evidence was insufficient and that the applicant was estopped from claiming benefits due to refusing modified work. However, the Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the petition, adopting the judge's report which credited the applicant's testimony that he was not offered suitable modified work. The Board emphasized that an applicant may be estopped from receiving benefits only if they refuse suitable modified work without good cause, and the judge's credibility determination was given great weight.

Temporary disability indemnityQualified medical evaluatorSubstantial medical evidenceEstoppelModified workOdd lot doctrineHealing periodCredibility determinationsPetition for reconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
6
Case No. 698 F.Supp. 452
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 01, 1988

Tunis v. Corning Glass Works

Catherine Tunis, a process engineer at Corning Glass, filed a lawsuit alleging sex discrimination and retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. She claimed a hostile work environment due to pinup photographs, gender-based language, and catcalls, and that her termination was in retaliation for her complaints and an EEOC filing. The court found that the employer took prompt and reasonable remedial action regarding the hostile environment claims. Additionally, the court determined that Tunis failed to demonstrate that the legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons provided by Corning Glass for her termination were merely a pretext for discrimination. Consequently, all of Tunis's claims were dismissed, and judgment was entered in favor of the defendant.

Sex DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VIICivil Rights ActEmployment DiscriminationWorkplace HarassmentGender BiasWrongful TerminationFederal Lawsuit
References
12
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01696 [159 AD3d 1215]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 15, 2018

Matter of Parron (Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Louis B. Parron, a central office technician for Verizon, was denied unemployment insurance benefits after refusing to report to an alternate work location during a union strike. Despite his union initiating a strike, the employer provided consolidated work sites and travel allowances, which Parron refused, insisting on reporting to his closed original location. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed the denial of benefits, finding that Parron's benefits were properly suspended under Labor Law § 592 (1) as he ceased working due to a strike and not a lockout by the employer. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the suspension of benefits.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsStrikeIndustrial ControversyAlternate Work SiteRefusal to WorkLabor Law § 592(1)Denial of BenefitsAppellate Division Third DepartmentTelecommunications Company
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mtr. of Green (Republic Steel)

Richard Green, a bricklayer for Republic Steel Corporation, was laid off and subsequently refused an offer of lower-skilled, lower-paying laborer work, citing unsuitability. The Labor Department and Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board found him entitled to benefits, a decision affirmed by the Appellate Division. The employer challenged this, arguing that a collective bargaining agreement's 'Plant Waiver' clause should negate unemployment benefits if alternative work is refused. However, the court held that any agreement to waive unemployment rights is invalid under Labor Law § 595. The primary issue was whether Green had good cause to refuse the laborer position, which the court affirmed was supported by substantial evidence, considering his specialized skills, lack of prior experience as a laborer, and a significant wage differential.

Unemployment BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor LawSuitable EmploymentRefusal of WorkWaiver of RightsAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceWage DifferentialSeniority
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parrales v. Wonder Works Construction Corp.

The plaintiff, who sustained personal injuries while working in an elevator shaft used for demolition debris disposal, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County. The initial order granted the defendants' motion for reargument and, upon reargument, vacated a prior order that had granted the plaintiff summary judgment on certain Labor Law § 241 (6) claims. The appellate court modified the order, reinstating summary judgment for the plaintiff on claims predicated on 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (a)(1), 23-1.20, and 23-2.5 (a), finding the plaintiff had made a prima facie showing of entitlement. However, the court also awarded summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim based on 12 NYCRR 23-2.1 (b), concluding that this provision lacked the specificity required for such a cause of action.

Personal InjuryLabor LawSummary JudgmentDemolition WorkConstruction AccidentFalling DebrisIndustrial CodeComparative NegligenceAppellate ReviewKings County
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 7,388 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