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

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

Brown v. State

A claimant, formerly a supervisor, initiated legal action against the State of New York and four individual state employees, asserting claims under the State Human Rights Law and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claimant alleged persistent verbal and sexual harassment by a co-worker, Albert Morelli, and further contended that supervisors failed to intervene, leading to her alleged retaliatory "constructive termination" in October 1983. The Court of Claims dismissed the actions against the individual employees and the emotional distress claim but permitted the Human Rights Law cause of action, rejecting the State's defenses based on the Statute of Limitations and election of remedies. On cross appeals, the higher court affirmed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, citing public policy against such suits for official conduct, and upheld the finding that the Human Rights Law claim was not time-barred or precluded by election of remedies.

Sexual harassmentVerbal harassmentRetaliationHuman Rights LawIntentional infliction of emotional distressConstructive terminationStatute of LimitationsElection of remediesRespondeat superiorPublic policy defense
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bounds v. State

The case involves an appeal concerning a claimant injured while participating in the Work Experience Program (WEP) at Cayuga Lake State Park, subsequently suing the State of New York under Labor Law § 240 (1). The initial Court of Claims decision granted partial summary judgment to the claimant. However, the appellate court determined that while the claimant was an employee of Seneca County, a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether he was also a 'special employee' of the State of New York. This 'special employee' status is crucial as it could invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, thereby barring his claim. Consequently, the appellate court modified the judgment by denying both the claimant's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, affirming the judgment as modified.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeLabor LawScaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPublic AssistanceWork Experience ProgramEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hale v. New York State Department of Mental Health

Curtis Hale, Jr. initiated an action under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination after his termination as a Mental Hygiene Therapy Aide at the Bronx Children’s Psychiatric Center. He claimed the Civil Service Employee Association failed to provide adequate representation and the New York State Department of Mental Health breached contractual obligations. The court, treating the State's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, found Hale's Title VII claims time-barred. His EEOC complaint was filed beyond the 180 or 300-day statutory limitations period, which commenced from the notice of termination (December 8, 1978), not the actual discharge date. Additionally, the court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Hale’s state law breach of contract claim against the State, citing an absence of diversity and no federal question under the Labor Management Relations Act. Consequently, the court granted the State’s motion, dismissing the complaint against the New York State Department of Mental Health.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment TerminationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionEleventh AmendmentCivil Service
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01453 [159 AD3d 674]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2018

Grasso v. New York State Thruway Auth.

This case involves four consolidated personal injury claims filed by Jerry A. Grasso, Jr., John Sullivan, Jr., Cathy Marl, and Louis Centolanza against the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA). The claimants alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, stemming from injuries sustained during a highway construction project. The Court of Claims initially granted NYSTA's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims based on collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) and for punitive damages, finding collateral estoppel applicable and punitive damages barred by sovereign immunity. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by denying the dismissal of claims alleging Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, concluding that collateral estoppel did not apply to NYSTA as a property owner and that NYSTA acted in a proprietary capacity, thus subject to tort liability.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Common-law NegligenceCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityGovernmental Function ImmunityProprietary FunctionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site Accident
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1982

Weiss v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

The State Human Rights Appeal Board's order, dated July 27, 1982, concerning Anna S. Weiss and the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, has been modified. The court has remanded for further consideration finding number 23, which stated that complainant Anna S. Weiss voluntarily retired from the WCB effective August 17, 1978. Consequently, the associated directives for WCB to pay Anna S. Weiss back pay, based on the salary difference between a Senior Research Analyst and an Assistant Director of Research and Statistics for the period June 22, 1978, to August 17, 1978, and $1,000 for humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, are also subject to further review. The court noted that providing both wage difference and embarrassment damages might be duplicative or that $1,000 is sufficient for punitive purposes. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DisputeRetirement BenefitsWage DifferentialEmotional Distress DamagesAdministrative Law AppealJudicial RemandAppellate Panel DecisionDissenting Judicial OpinionConcurring Judicial Opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital

A proceeding was initiated by the State Division of Human Rights to enforce an order against Elizabeth A. Horton Memorial Hospital. The hospital had discriminated against a female employee by denying disability benefits for pregnancy-related disability, despite being a self-insured employer providing benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law. The State Division's order, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board, directed the hospital to pay benefits, furnish proof, and establish a nondiscrimination policy. The hospital failed to comply, leading to this enforcement action almost two years after the Appeal Board's order. The court granted the petition for enforcement, denied the hospital's cross-motion, found the enforcement proceeding timely and not barred by laches, and affirmed that the original discrimination finding was supported by substantial evidence.

Sex DiscriminationPregnancy Disability BenefitsEnforcement ProceedingHuman Rights LawWorkers' Compensation LawTimelinessLachesSubstantial EvidenceEmployer DiscriminationDisability Benefits Denial
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. New York State Department of State

Petitioners, identified as the owners and operators of Indian Point Energy Center, appealed a judgment that dismissed their challenge to a modification by respondents, the Secretary of State, Department of Environmental Conservation, and Department of State. The modification extended a statutorily protected environmental habitat in the Hudson River, now called 'Hudson Highlands,' impacting the area near Indian Point. Petitioners argued that the modification lacked a rational scientific basis, constituted formal rulemaking without proper procedure, and that the denial of their discovery requests was an abuse of discretion. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, deferring to the agencies' interpretation of their regulations and finding the modification rational, not formal rulemaking, and the discovery denial justified.

Environmental ProtectionHabitat ModificationAgency DeferenceCPLR Article 78Declaratory JudgmentRegulatory InterpretationScientific EvidenceFormal RulemakingAdministrative ProcedureDiscovery Denial
References
24
Showing 1-10 of 10,773 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