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. GRO 27301, GRO 28637
Regular
Feb 11, 2008

HERMAN DENNLER vs. TIMEC CO., INC., ST. PAUL TRAVELERS, OPEN WAVES SYSTEMS, LUMBERMAN'S MUTUAL CASUALTY COMPANY

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board opinion corrects a clerical error in a previous decision, specifically removing the incorrect statement that St. Paul Travelers was adjusted by Broadspire. The case involves two injuries sustained by Herman Dennler in 2002, with awards of permanent disability indemnity and future medical treatment granted against Timec Co., Inc. (insured by St. Paul Travelers) and Open Wave Systems (insured by Lumberman's Mutual Casualty Company). The correction clarifies that St. Paul Travelers was the insurance carrier for Timec Co., Inc. and was not adjusted by Broadspire.

Workers' Compensation Appeals Boardclerical errorreconsiderationaward correctionpermanent partial disabilitytemporary disability indemnitymedical treatmentattorney's feeslienTimec Co.
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Warshawsky v. DiNapoli

Philip Warshawsky, a unified court officer, sought accidental disability retirement benefits from the New York State and Local Employees’ Retirement System due to heart disease. His application was initially denied based on the Retirement System's interpretation that he failed to prove an "accident" under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605-a, despite his claim under the "Heart Bill" provision, § 605-b. Warshawsky argued that § 605-b establishes a presumption of accidental causation for heart conditions in uniformed court officers, rendering proof of a specific accident unnecessary. The court agreed with Warshawsky, finding that the Retirement System's interpretation of § 605-b was an error of law and irrational. The court annulled the denial and remitted the matter to the Retirement System for reconsideration, affording Warshawsky the benefit of the statutory presumption.

Accidental Disability RetirementHeart Bill PresumptionUniformed Court OfficersRetirement and Social Security LawStatutory InterpretationCPLR Article 78 ReviewAdministrative DeterminationArbitrary and CapriciousError of LawRemand
References
14
Case No. Index No. 159601/16 Appeal No. 15885 Case No. 2021-02096
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2022

Matter of Nespoli v. Board of Trustees of the N.Y. City Employees' Retirement Sys.

Petitioners, members of NYCERS and other New York City retirement systems, were initially placed in Tier 4 after being hired as uniformed sanitation workers post-April 1, 2012. In 2016, NYCERS reclassified them from the Tier 4 Sanitation 20-Year retirement plan (SA-20) to the revised Tier 3/Tier 6 Sanitation 22-Year retirement plan (SA-22), citing an error. The Supreme Court denied the petitioners' request to annul this determination. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this judgment, concluding that the reclassification was not an error of law, nor did it violate the New York State Constitution, as petitioners were never contractually entitled to SA-20 benefits. The court also rejected the argument for equitable estoppel, noting NYCERS' statutory mandate to correct administrative errors.

Retirement benefitsPublic employeesReclassificationNew York City Employees' Retirement SystemTier 4Tier 3/Tier 6Sanitation 20-Year retirement planSanitation 22-Year retirement planRetirement and Social Security LawCPLR article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tagare v. NYNEX Network Systems Co.

Plaintiff Neil Tagare filed an action against NYNEX entities and several individuals, alleging discrimination based on color and national origin, retaliation under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law, and breach of contract. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint on various grounds, including Rule 17(a) regarding real party in interest and ripeness for the contract claim, and the applicability of Title VII and HRL to individual defendants. The court denied dismissal for breach of contract against NYNEX Network Systems Company and upheld HRL claims against individual defendants based on aiding and abetting. The court granted dismissal of Title VII claims against individual defendants and partially granted dismissal of the breach of contract claim against other defendants, while denying the motion for a more definite statement.

Employment DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationColor DiscriminationRetaliationBreach of ContractMotion to DismissTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureIndividual Liability
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cablevision Systems Corp. v. Communications Workers of America District 1

The lawsuit, filed by Cablevision Systems against Communications Workers of America District 1 (CWA) and individual defendants, sought to address alleged harassment, trespass, stalking, disorderly conduct, and tortious interference with business relations. These claims arose from the defendants' purported disruption of two private Cablevision events in May 2013, a shareholder meeting and an investors' conference. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint. The court granted the motion, ruling that a corporate entity like Cablevision Systems cannot be considered a "person" for the purpose of bringing statutory claims under the Penal Law sections cited (harassment, stalking, disorderly conduct). Furthermore, the court found the claims for common-law trespass and tortious interference insufficient due to the plaintiff's failure to demonstrate that individual union members authorized or ratified the alleged unlawful actions. Consequently, the plaintiff's complaint was dismissed entirely.

Labor DisputeUnion HarassmentCorporate EventsTrespassStalkingDisorderly ConductTortious InterferenceMotion to DismissPrivate Right of ActionPenal Law Interpretation
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganthier v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Healthy System

Esther Ganthier sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Susan Tobin, GreyStone Staffing, Inc., and Karen Westerlind alleging race and national origin discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy. GreyStone and Westerlind moved to dismiss, while Ganthier cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against GreyStone and Westerlind, finding individuals are not liable under Title VII and GreyStone was not named in the EEOC charge. It also dismissed Section 1981, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy claims due to pleading deficiencies. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city human rights laws against the dismissed defendants and denied Ganthier's cross-motion to amend as futile, instructing to amend the caption to reflect only North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and Susan Tobin as defendants.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissLeave to AmendTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsFederal Civil Procedure Rules
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brosnahan v. New York State Employees' Retirement System

The case involves a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against the Comptroller's decision to remove his salary and service credits from his retirement record. The petitioner, employed by Suffolk Regional Off-Track Betting Corporation, initially had his position reported to the New York State Employees’ Retirement System as full-time employment. However, an investigation by the Comptroller concluded that an employer-employee relationship did not exist, leading to the termination of his retirement system membership. The petitioner argued that the Comptroller lacked authority for the deletion, should be estopped, and that the "results-means" control test applied was an unpromulgated rule. The court rejected these arguments, affirming the Comptroller's statutory duty to correct errors and finding sufficient evidence to support the determination that the petitioner was an independent contractor. Consequently, the determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Employee status disputeIndependent contractor classificationRetirement record correctionGovernmental estoppelAdministrative determination reviewService creditsSalary deletionEmployer-employee relationship testJudicial review of agency actionCPLR article 78 proceeding
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 04, 2015

In re Barrier Window Systems, Inc.

Barrier Window Systems, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found Barrier liable for additional unemployment insurance contributions for its installers. Barrier, which transitioned from installing to selling building products and arranging installations via subcontractors, argued it was not a contractor under the Fair Play Act and that its installers were independent contractors. The Board determined that Barrier continued to engage in construction by arranging installations and that the installers did not meet all three criteria of the Fair Play Act's ABC test for independent contractor status. The Court affirmed the Board's decision, finding it supported by substantial evidence, thereby upholding Barrier's liability.

Unemployment InsuranceIndependent ContractorWorker MisclassificationConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawABC TestEmployment RelationshipSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative AppealStatutory Presumption
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morser v. AT & T INFORMATION SYSTEMS

Plaintiff Roy Morser filed an age discrimination complaint against defendant AT & T Information Systems (ATT-IS) after being laid off during a company-wide reduction-in-force. The court initially granted summary judgment in favor of ATT-IS, prompting Morser to file a motion for reargument. Morser based his motion on recent Second Circuit employment discrimination decisions, Montana and Ramseur, arguing that the court had overlooked or misapplied summary judgment standards, particularly regarding intent and drawing inferences in favor of the non-moving party. The court granted the motion for reargument, but upon reconsideration, reaffirmed its original decision to grant summary judgment to ATT-IS. The court found that its initial ruling had properly applied summary judgment standards and distinguished the facts of Morser's case from the precedents cited, noting the context of a massive layoff and lack of specific evidence of discriminatory intent.

Age DiscriminationSummary JudgmentReduction-in-Force (RIF)Rule 56 Fed.R.Civ.P.Rule 3(j) Civil Rules S.D.N.Y. & E.D.N.Y.Rule 59(e) Fed.R.Civ.P.Reargument MotionEmployment LawDisparate TreatmentSecond Circuit Precedent
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Hilton v. Truss Systems, Inc.

The court affirmed the order with costs, adopting the rationale set forth in the Appellate Division's opinion authored by Justice Paul J. Yesawich, Jr. This ruling indicates agreement with the lower court's findings and legal conclusions. The decision was reached by a full panel, with Chief Judge Cooke and Judges Jasen, Gabrielli, Jones, Wachtler, Fuchsberg, and Meyer all concurring in the outcome. The affirmation suggests the absence of reversible error in the initial proceedings, solidifying the prior judgment. The award of costs further reinforces the court's final determination.

Order AffirmedAppellate ReviewJudicial ConcurrenceCosts AwardedPanel Decision
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,325 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