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

21948, LLC v. Riaz

The petitioner in this commercial nonpayment proceeding sought to dispense with a nonmilitary affidavit and obtain a final judgment of possession and a warrant of eviction against the respondent tenant. The court, presided over by Justice Paul G. Feinman, denied the motion without prejudice. The denial was based on the petitioner's insufficient efforts to verify the respondent's nonmilitary status, failing to meet the requirements of the United States Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act and the New York State Soldiers’ and Sailors’ Civil Relief Act of 1951. The court instructed the petitioner to provide a supplemental affidavit detailing further investigative steps, including additional visits to the premises, review of lease documents for contact information, and direct inquiries with the military.

Commercial nonpaymentNonmilitary affidavitSoldiers and Sailors Civil Relief ActMilitary statusDue diligenceEvictionCivil procedureMotion renewalNew York lawAffidavit requirements
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1988

Levitt v. Civil Service Commission

The City of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the Civil Service Commission's decision to reject the reclassification of the deckhand position from the competitive to the noncompetitive civil service class. Petitioners argued that the Commission applied an overly strict standard, acted inconsistently with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the NY Constitution, based its decision solely on a presumption despite expert opinions, and failed to adequately state its reasoning. The Appellate Division found that the Commission properly used the term "compelling" to reflect the constitutional preference for competitive examinations and that its decision, while brief, allowed for judicial review. Citing the public safety roles of deckhands, similar to police and firefighters, the court concluded that competitive examinations are feasible and petitioners failed to demonstrate an impediment to compliance with job-relatedness requirements.

Civil Service LawJob ReclassificationCompetitive ExaminationNoncompetitive ClassPublic SafetyDeckhand PositionAppellate ReviewCivil Rights Act Title VIINew York ConstitutionArbitrary Determination
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 25, 2012

Ruesch v. Ruesch

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Nassau County, in a divorce and ancillary relief action. The Supreme Court found the defendant in civil contempt for violating a stipulation by allowing her paramour to reside in the marital home. The court suspended maintenance payments and imposed a prospective fine. The plaintiff argued for retrospective application of these penalties and an award of an attorney's fee. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, stating that civil contempt fines are remedial, not punitive for past acts without proven actual loss. The court also found the denial of attorney's fees to be without merit.

DivorceCivil ContemptMaintenance PaymentsStipulation ViolationProspective FineMarital HomeAppellate ReviewJudicial DiscretionRemedial FineAttorney's Fee
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fickling v. New York State Department of Civil Service

This case involves a lawsuit brought by eight plaintiffs, primarily African-American and Hispanic former employees, against the New York State Department of Civil Service and Westchester County Department of Social Services. Plaintiffs alleged that their termination as Welfare Eligibility Examiners, due to failing competitive examinations, was unlawful under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the New York State Executive Law § 296. They claimed the examination had a racially disparate impact and lacked content validity, failing to serve the defendants' employment goal of fair competition. The court found that the examinations indeed had a disparate impact on African-Americans and Hispanics and that the defendants failed to provide credible evidence that the tests served a legitimate business goal. Therefore, the court ruled in favor of the plaintiffs.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VII Civil Rights ActDisparate ImpactCivil Service ExaminationsContent ValidityJob AnalysisRacial DiscriminationHispanic DiscriminationWelfare Eligibility ExaminersNew York State Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Civil Service Employees Association (C.S.E.A.) filed an Article 78 application to challenge actions taken by the City of White Plains and the Public Employment Relations Board (P.E.R.B.). C.S.E.A. sought to vacate a resolution where the City recognized a different employee organization (S.I.W.A.) for a portion of its employees, thereby altering C.S.E.A.'s bargaining unit, and to annul a P.E.R.B. order upholding the City's action. The City cross-moved to dismiss the petition, arguing improper venue and that it was not a proper party. The court determined that Albany County was the correct venue and that the City was a proper party. The central issue was whether the City could unilaterally change bargaining unit composition without C.S.E.A.'s consent or a decertification petition. The court ultimately denied C.S.E.A.'s requested relief, agreeing with P.E.R.B. that public employers can recognize different employee organizations once an incumbent's unchallenged representation status period expires, in accordance with Civil Service Law sections 204 and 208.

Public Employment RelationsCollective Bargaining UnitsEmployee Organization RecognitionTaylor LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 CPLRBargaining Unit AlterationDecertification ProceedingsPublic Employer RightsVenue Disputes
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 07007
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 2020

Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (New York State Dept. of Corr. & Community Supervision)

Dana Favreau, an employee, faced dismissal by the New York State Department of Corrections and Community Supervision after allegedly filing false incident reports against her supervisor. Her union, Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., initiated a grievance that led to arbitration. The arbitrator dismissed some charges pre-hearing and all remaining charges when the respondent refused to participate in the evidentiary hearing. The Supreme Court vacated the arbitration award, finding the arbitrator exceeded her authority. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, holding that the arbitrator acted within her authority and consistent with the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) and Civil Practice Law and Rules (CPLR), thereby granting the petitioners' application to confirm the arbitration award and denying the respondent's cross-motion to vacate.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceDismissal from ServiceAbuse of AuthorityJudicial ReviewAppellate ReversalDue ProcessEvidentiary HearingSummary Judgment
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stalban v. Friedman

This Per Curiam decision addresses a labor dispute where the plaintiff sought injunctive relief against defendant unions, despite the union members not being directly employed by the plaintiff. The court determined that a labor dispute, as defined by Civil Practice Act, § 876-a, subd. 10, was indeed involved. Due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead or prove facts mandated by section 876-a of the Civil Practice Act, injunctive relief could not be granted. The decision emphasizes that the ruling of the State Labor Relations Board regarding collective bargaining agency did not influence this outcome. Consequently, the judgment was unanimously reversed, and the complaint dismissed with costs.

Labor Dispute LawInjunctive Relief DeniedCivil Practice Act § 876-aPleading SufficiencyCollective Bargaining IssuesUnion MembershipAppellate ReversalComplaint DismissalCourt Costs AwardedPer Curiam Opinion
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1995

Helbrans v. Coombe

Plaintiff Shlomo Helbrans, an Orthodox Hasidic Jew, sought injunctive relief against the State to prevent the removal of his facial hair upon incarceration, citing his religious beliefs under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the Civil Rights Act, and the Declaratory Judgment Act. The parties settled, agreeing that Helbrans' beard would not be removed and he would not face disciplinary action for refusing to shave. Helbrans subsequently moved for attorneys' fees under the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Award Act of 1976. The court granted his motion, affirming his status as a prevailing party, but substantially reduced the requested fees, citing excessive hours, staffing inefficiencies, and high hourly rates, ultimately awarding $55,540.36.

Civil RightsAttorneys' FeesReligious Freedom Restoration ActInmate RightsPrisoner RightsInjunctive ReliefPrevailing PartyLodestar MethodQualified Immunity DefenseSettlement Agreement
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 4,851 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