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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01193 [214 AD3d 735]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 08, 2023

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn. v. City of Long Beach

This case concerns a dispute between the Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association (union) and the City of Long Beach regarding the terms of employment for paramedics. The City had unilaterally set these terms, leading the union to file a grievance and subsequently seek arbitration. The arbitrator found that the City violated the collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award, which the City appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the City failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to vacate the arbitration award on grounds of irrationality, manifest disregard of law, arbitrator misconduct, or violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardCPLR Article 75 ProceedingJudicial Review of ArbitrationPublic Policy ExceptionManifest Disregard of LawAppellate ReviewMunicipal EmploymentParamedicsGrievance
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03356 [161 AD3d 855]
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2018

Matter of City of Long Beach v. Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Assn., Local 287

The City of Long Beach (petitioner) appealed an order denying its petition to stay arbitration and granting the Long Beach Professional Fire Fighters Association, Local 287's (respondent) cross-motion to compel arbitration. The dispute arose after the City laid off firefighters and hired paramedics, setting the paramedics' terms of employment unilaterally. The union filed a grievance and demand for arbitration. The Supreme Court denied the City's petition and granted the union's cross-motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, held that arbitration of the claim regarding firefighter layoffs violated public policy, citing Civil Service Law § 80 (1) which grants public employers nondelegable discretion over staffing. However, the court found no public policy precluding arbitration of claims related to the paramedics' terms of employment, as permitted by the collective bargaining agreement. Therefore, the order was modified to grant the City's petition to stay arbitration of the layoff claim and deny the union's cross-motion to compel arbitration of that claim, while affirming the rest of the order.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyFirefighter LayoffsParamedics EmploymentCivil Service LawManagement PrerogativeTaylor LawAppellate ReviewLabor Dispute
References
15
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 00977 [136 AD3d 824]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2016

Matter of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 287 v. City of Long Beach

Jay Gusler, a lieutenant in the City of Long Beach Fire Department and a member of Long Beach Professional Firefighters Association, Local 287, was demoted to firefighter. This demotion followed a disciplinary proceeding presided over by Robert L. Douglas, as per a settlement agreement between the City and the Association. The appellants (Gusler and the Association) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the demotion, arguing Douglas lacked authority under the City Code. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, dismissed the proceeding. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed this decision, finding that the City and Association could negotiate a collective bargaining agreement allowing demotion, and Douglas acted within the authority granted by their settlement agreement.

DemotionFirefightersCollective Bargaining AgreementSettlement AgreementDisciplinary ProceedingsArticle 78 ProceedingArbitrator AuthorityCity CodePublic EmploymentAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 06495 [143 AD3d 710]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 05, 2016

Matter of City of Long Beach v. Long Beach Professional Firefighters Assn., Local 287

The City of Long Beach appealed an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, which denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the case, reiterating that judicial review of arbitration awards is extremely limited, permissible only if the award violates strong public policy, is irrational, or clearly exceeds the arbitrator's power. The Court found that the arbitrator did not apply an incorrect standard of review and that the award itself did not violate public policy, was not irrational, and did not clearly exceed a specifically enumerated limitation on the arbitrator's power. Consequently, the Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's order and judgment.

Arbitration awardJudicial reviewPublic policy violationIrrational arbitrationArbitrator's powerAppellate Division Second DepartmentCPLR Article 75Vacate arbitration awardFirefighters Association disputeNassau County Supreme Court
References
10
Case No. ADJ3015289 (FRE 0242633)
Regular
Jan 06, 2012

SHARON LONG vs. KAISER FOUNDATION HOSPITALS administered by KAISER PERMANENTE

This case involves applicant Sharon Long's claim for workers' compensation benefits due to cumulative trauma sustained as a registered nurse for Kaiser Foundation Hospitals. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration, reversing the initial denial of industrial injury. The Board found that Dr. Dureza's opinion, which attributed 33% of applicant's injuries to cumulative trauma from her nursing duties, constituted substantial evidence of industrial causation. The Board remanded the case for further proceedings on orthopedic benefits and the psychiatric injury claim, deferring the EDD lien.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardKaiser Foundation HospitalsSharon LongIndustrial InjuryCumulative TraumaRegistered NurseNeck InjuryLow Back InjurySpine InjuryPsyche Injury
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long v. Frank

James Long, representing himself, initiated an age discrimination lawsuit against the United States Postal Service and Postmaster General Anthony M. Frank, alleging a violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act (ADEA) due to his 1982 employment termination. He sought overtime back pay and compensation for legal services. The government moved for summary judgment, arguing that Long's claims were barred by res judicata and collateral estoppel, citing a prior Federal Circuit decision that affirmed MSPB rulings against him on attorney fees and overtime pay enforcement. The court acknowledged the Federal Circuit's exclusive jurisdiction over MSPB appeals but clarified that it lacked jurisdiction over ADEA discrimination claims. Consequently, the court denied the government's summary judgment motion regarding the ADEA-based overtime back pay claim, allowing it to proceed, but granted summary judgment on the claim for direct payment of attorney fees, finding it precluded by the Federal Circuit's prior ruling.

Age DiscriminationADEARes JudicataCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionMSPB AppealsOvertime PayAttorney FeesFederal Employees
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Long v. Schenectady County Young Men's Christian Ass'n

Karen C. Long, a participant in a counselor aide training program at the Schenectady County YMCA's Camp Chingachgook, suffered an injury in 1989. Following a personal injury lawsuit against the YMCA, the Workers' Compensation Board ruled that Long was an employee of the YMCA and her injury was work-related, which the claimants then appealed. The court analyzed factors such as the right of control, method of payment, furnishing of equipment, right of discharge, and the nature of the work. Evidence showed Long received tuition reduction, free room and board, and was required to obtain working papers, while the YMCA provided equipment and retained the right to dismiss her. Ultimately, the court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship.

Workers' CompensationEmployee StatusEmployer-Employee RelationshipCounselor AideYMCACamp InjuryBoard Decision AppealControl TestPayment MethodEquipment Provision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

PSEG Long Island LLC v. Town of North Hempstead

This case involves a constitutional challenge by PSEG Long Island LLC and LIPA against the Town of North Hempstead and its officials over Chapter 64B of the Town Code. The ordinance requires public utility providers to post warning signs on wooden utility poles treated with chemical preservatives, which the plaintiffs argue compels noncommercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Court determined that the ordinance regulates noncommercial speech, thus requiring strict scrutiny. Finding that the Town failed to demonstrate that the ordinance was narrowly tailored or that less restrictive means were unavailable to achieve its public safety objectives, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining the enforcement of Chapter 64B, and denied the Town's cross-motion.

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCompelled SpeechCommercial Speech DoctrineGovernment Speech DoctrineStrict ScrutinySummary JudgmentUtility PolesChemical PreservativesPublic Safety
References
38
Case No. 2024 NYSlipOp 01329 [225 AD3d 730]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2024

Wittenberg v. Long Is. Power Auth.

William Wittenberg, a journeyman lineman, sustained injuries from an explosion while working on electrical lines for Haugland Energy Group, LLC, under a contract with Long Island Power Authority, Public Service Enterprise Group, Inc., and PSEG Long Island, LLC. Wittenberg sued the defendants for negligence and Labor Law violations. The defendants subsequently initiated a third-party action against Haugland for contractual indemnification. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim and the complaint, also dismissing the contractual indemnification claim. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this judgment, finding the defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment untimely for certain claims, and that Haugland and the defendants failed to establish prima facie entitlement to judgment regarding the Labor Law § 241 (6) violation and contractual indemnification. Consequently, the complaint and the cause of action for contractual indemnification were reinstated.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law ViolationsPersonal InjuryContractual IndemnificationAppellate ReviewConstruction AccidentElectrical SafetyTimeliness of MotionPrima Facie EntitlementIndustrial Code Violation
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board of Brookhaven

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island, a region critical for the area's drinking water aquifer and unique ecology. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that SEQRA's requirements for mandatory cumulative impact statements do not apply to this situation. The court distinguished between a general governmental policy of protecting a region and a specific governmental plan for development, asserting that only the latter triggers mandatory cumulative review. It emphasized that a centralized planning approach by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, as outlined in ECL article 55, is the appropriate mechanism for managing development in such a vast and sensitive area, rather than piecemeal decisions through individual SEQRA reviews. While acknowledging the environmental urgency and the delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, the court concluded that the solution must come from legislative action, not by extending SEQRA's existing provisions.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative Impact StatementPine BarrensLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningSuffolk CountyState Environmental Quality Review ActECL Article 55
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 595 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