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
Jan 21, 1992

Saitanis Enterprises, Inc. v. Hines

The petitioner initiated a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge a determination by the New York State Department of Labor. The Department of Labor's determination, dated January 21, 1992, found that the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees in violation of Labor Law § 220. The court confirmed the Department of Labor's determination, finding that the record supported the finding of underpayment and that the calculation of underpayment was supported by substantial evidence. The court also deemed the petitioner's argument regarding worker classification as untimely, noting that challenges to prevailing wage rate schedules must be made within four months of receipt. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed on the merits, with costs.

prevailing wagesunderpaymentDepartment of Laborcredibility determinationsworker classificationtimeliness of challengeadministrative agencysubstantial evidencelabor law violationjudicial review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Emes Heating & Plumbing Contractors, Inc. v. McGowen

Petitioner, a construction company, entered a public works contract but was investigated by the Department of Labor for failing to pay prevailing wages and supplements. After petitioner failed to provide payroll records, an audit and subsequent hearing found that petitioner willfully violated Labor Law § 220 (3) and owed $37,751.81 in back wages, plus interest and a 25% civil penalty. Petitioner challenged this determination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging procedural errors and due process violations. The court rejected all of petitioner's contentions, including arguments against evidence admission and the finding of willfulness, which was supported by prior violations. The determination against the petitioner was ultimately confirmed, and the petition was dismissed.

Prevailing WageLabor Law ViolationsPublic Works ContractUnderpayment of WagesCivil PenaltyCPLR Article 78Willful ViolationDue ProcessHearing OfficerAudit Findings
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Otis Eastern Service, Inc. v. Hudacs

This CPLR article 78 proceeding reviewed a determination by the respondent regarding the petitioner's alleged failure to pay prevailing wages and wage supplements to 28 workers at the Belleayre Mountain Ski Center project. The petitioner argued that workers were properly classified as general laborers and welder helpers, while the respondent contended they should be classified as intermediate laborers under the Laborers’ Union Local 17 Agreement. The Hearing Officer initially sided with the petitioner, but the respondent rejected this, finding willful underpayments. The court affirmed the respondent's determination, concluding it was supported by substantial evidence and that the finding of willfulness was justified.

Prevailing WageWage SupplementsWorker ClassificationLabor LawCPLR Article 78Willful UnderpaymentUnion ContractsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DeterminationSubstantial Evidence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sarco Industries v. Angello

In this CPLR article 78 proceeding, petitioners challenged a determination that they failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements. Petitioners, contractors for a project at Cornell University, were found by a Hearing Officer to have underpaid 10 workers and paid apprentice wages to unregistered apprentices. Crucially, they willfully underpaid Nathan McGeever by paying him an an apprentice rate while he worked without journeyman supervision, thereby entitling him to be paid at the higher journeyman rate. The court found substantial evidence supported the determination that petitioners knew or should have known they were violating Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the court confirmed the determination, dismissed the petition, and upheld the 20% civil penalty imposed.

prevailing wagesapprentice wagesLabor Law § 220willfulnessCPLR Article 78judicial reviewcivil penaltyconstruction contractjourneyman supervisionunderpayment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

East End Property Co. 1 v. Kessel

The case involves a hybrid proceeding (CPLR article 78) and a taxpayer action (State Finance Law § 123-b) challenging two determinations by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) dated December 15, 2005. These determinations adopted a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings statement and authorized LIPA to enter into a power purchase agreement with Caithness Long Island, LLC, for a 350-megawatt power plant in Brookhaven. The petitioners-plaintiffs appealed from an order and judgment which denied their amended petition, dismissed the proceeding, and dismissed the sixth and seventh causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while some civic associations had standing for certain claims, none had standing for the sixth cause of action (violations of Public Authorities Law § 1020-f) and the individual appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient injury. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, concluding that LIPA satisfied its SEQRA obligations, including taking a "hard look" at environmental impacts and adequately analyzing alternatives. The court further ruled that LIPA's segmentation of the Iroquois Pipeline Extension environmental review was not improper due to federal preemption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and that no supplemental EIS was required. Finally, the court found the taxpayer action allegations insufficient to establish an illegal use of state funds under State Finance Law § 123-b.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAStandingTaxpayer ActionHybrid ProceedingPower Purchase AgreementLong Island Power AuthorityFederal PreemptionSegmentationAdministrative Law
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernhard v. Hartsdale Fire District

The petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the Board of Fire Commissioners of the Hartsdale Fire District, which denied him benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-a. The court confirmed the determination and dismissed the proceeding, holding that eligibility for a disability pension under Retirement and Social Security Law § 363-c does not automatically grant supplemental wage benefits. The court emphasized that entitlement to General Municipal Law § 207-a benefits requires both a line-of-duty injury and physical inability to perform regular duties. Despite a workers’ compensation finding of injury, the petitioner continued performing regular duties until retirement. The Board's decision, supported by medical evidence from the respondent's physician, found the petitioner not disabled, a finding upheld by the court.

Disability BenefitsFirefighter BenefitsGeneral Municipal LawRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewMunicipal EmployerPhysical Inability to WorkMedical EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Board
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Estate of Seitz v. Jacobson & Co.

This appeal concerns the timeliness of a supplemental application for review in a workers' compensation death benefits claim. John Seitz, a sheet metal worker, died from asbestosis-related lung cancer. His surviving spouse filed for benefits but died before causality was established, leading a WCLJ to close the case. The decedent's estate sought to reopen the case, and although a WCLJ initially ruled the claim abated upon the spouse's death, the estate filed for Board review. After being granted an extension by the Board's Office of Appeals, the estate filed a supplemental application arguing for benefits under Workers' Compensation Law § 16 (4-b). However, a Board panel subsequently deemed this application untimely and denied the claim. The Appellate Court reversed, finding the Board abused its discretion by rejecting the application as untimely after granting an extension, and also noted the Board's unexplained departure from prior precedents. The case was remitted to the Workers’ Compensation Board for further proceedings.

Death Benefits ClaimSupplemental Application ReviewTimeliness of FilingAbatement of Death BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Section 16 (4-b)Appellate Division ReviewAbuse of DiscretionBoard PrecedentRemand for Further ProceedingsAsbestosis-related Cancer
References
7
Case No. Dkt. # 6, Dkt. # 7
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2013

Crayton v. Astrue

Plaintiff appeals the denial of supplemental security income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits in 2009, alleging inability to work due to various medical conditions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the application, and the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. The District Court reviews the Commissioner's decision, finding that while the ALJ's assessment of exertional limitations was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ failed to apply the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) in analyzing non-exertional limitations. Consequently, the court remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically for proper application of the PRT.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgePsychiatric Review TechniqueRFCExertional LimitationsNon-exertional LimitationsDepressionAnxiety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 2004

Zenteno v. Geils

The defendants appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted the plaintiff's motion to restore a personal injury action to the trial calendar and for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars. The Appellate Division affirmed the order, finding that the plaintiff demonstrated a meritorious cause of action and a reasonable excuse for delay, citing extensive medical evaluations and difficulties obtaining authorization from the Workers’ Compensation Board. The court also determined that the defendants were not prejudiced by the restoration. Furthermore, an alleged agreement to proceed to arbitration was deemed unenforceable due to non-compliance with CPLR 2104 "open court" requirements. Finally, the Supreme Court's decision to grant leave for a supplemental bill of particulars was upheld, as it pertained to continuing consequences of existing injuries rather than new ones, aligning with CPLR 3043 [b].

Personal InjuryTrial Calendar RestorationSupplemental Bill of ParticularsArbitration Agreement EnforcementCPLR 2104CPLR 3043Medical ExaminationsWorkers' Compensation IssuesAppellate ReviewProcedural Motion
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07122 [165 AD3d 1108]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 24, 2018

Matter of Alexandria F. (George R.)

This case involves consolidated proceedings concerning the alleged abuse and neglect of three children, Alexandria F., Adalila R., and George W.R., by George R. The Family Court, Nassau County, found George R. severely abused Alexandria F. and derivatively abused Adalila R. and George W.R., also finding neglect of all three children. Additionally, the Family Court denied a petition for custody and access filed by Adalila R.-S. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the Family Court's order by deleting the 'severe' designation from the abuse finding regarding Alexandria F., as George R. was not her legal parent at the time. The court affirmed the findings of abuse against Alexandria F. and derivative abuse against Adalila R. and George W.R. Crucially, the Appellate Division disagreed with the Family Court's decision not to treat George R. as the father of Adalila R. and George W.R., citing formal judicial admissions by DSS. Consequently, the matter was remitted to the Family Court for further dispositional proceedings concerning Adalila R. and George W.R., including a re-evaluation of reunification efforts and the appropriateness and duration of protection orders. The denial of Adalila R.-S.'s custody and access petition was affirmed.

Child abuseChild neglectDerivative abuseParental rightsPaternityOrders of protectionCustody and accessFamily Court ActAppellate reviewRemittal
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 7,928 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