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

Kagha v. Carter

Petitioner, a hospital courier, was discharged by respondent Westchester County Medical Center following sustained charges of misconduct, including 72 specifications of lateness, unauthorized absences, and failure to follow reporting procedures. Petitioner challenged the termination, asserting a violation of Workers' Compensation Law § 120 due to a reopened workers' compensation case and arguing a doctor's note justified his absences. The court rejected the Workers' Compensation claim, noting the Workers' Compensation Board's exclusive jurisdiction, and dismissed the doctor's note argument, emphasizing the employer's established call-in policy and petitioner's history of time and leave abuses. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, finding the penalty of discharge proportionate to the pattern of misconduct.

MisconductTermination of EmploymentCPLR Article 78Civil Service Law § 75Workers' Compensation Law § 120Time and Leave AbusesUnauthorized AbsenceCall-in PolicyJudicial ReviewPenalty Proportionality
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Capone v. Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District

The petitioner, an employee of Patchogue-Medford Union Free School District (UFSD), was terminated after two adult students reported sexually explicit conversations and offers of sexual acts from him. The UFSD charged the petitioner with 18 specifications of misconduct under Civil Service Law §75. Following a hearing where 17 charges were sustained, the hearing officer recommended termination, which the UFSD adopted. The petitioner initiated an article 78 proceeding, arguing insufficient notice, lack of substantial evidence, and an excessively severe penalty. The court confirmed the determination, finding the charges adequate, supported by substantial evidence from student testimonies, and that termination was not disproportionate given precedent, despite the petitioner's previously unblemished 19-year record.

Employment terminationSexual misconductAdministrative reviewCivil Service LawSufficiency of evidencePenalty proportionalityArticle 78Due processHearing officer findingsPublic education employee
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richards v. Stolzenberg

Petitioner, an employee at Westchester County Medical Center, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Hospitals of Westchester County that terminated her employment for misconduct. The misconduct involved two incidents where she allegedly attempted to pull down male co-workers' trousers, violating sexual harassment policy and the Ethics Code. While the court upheld findings related to the sexual harassment policy, it found no basis for violating the Ethics Code, as the code lacked relevant provisions. Consequently, two specifications were dismissed, and the case was remitted for a reassessment of the penalty.

Employment TerminationMisconductSexual Harassment PolicyEthics CodeCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAdministrative LawAppellate CourtWestchester CountyCredibility Assessment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 22, 1999

In re the Claim of Petrocelli

The claimant was dismissed from her bookkeeper position after threatening a co-worker, a behavior she had been reprimanded for earlier. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that her employment was terminated due to misconduct, disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the Board's conclusion. It noted that continuous threatening or harassing behavior despite employer warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct. The court also clarified that the claimant's differing account of events merely created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve, which it was entitled to do.

Unemployment benefitsMisconductWorkplace threatsHarassmentEmployee dischargeCredibility issueAdministrative appealAppellate DivisionUnemployment Insurance LawEmployer warnings
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Keith v. New York State Thruway Authority

Petitioner, an assistant division engineer, was terminated by respondent for misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a scheme to deceive toll collectors into believing asbestos removal had begun prematurely at the Newburgh toll station, causing panic and union threats. This followed an earlier reprimand for failing to take safety precautions during an asbestos exposure incident at the New Paltz station. Following a hearing, the Hearing Officer found petitioner guilty of misconduct, leading to his dismissal on June 21, 1985. This CPLR article 78 proceeding was initiated to review the termination, with the court ultimately confirming the determination and dismissing the petition.

Employee misconductWorkplace safetyAsbestos exposureCPLR Article 78Termination of employmentDue processJudicial reviewAdministrative determinationCivil Service LawSupervisory responsibility
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Marten

Claimant, employed in a supervisory role at a nursing home, was terminated following an incident where she allegedly failed to assess an elderly resident's pain, told co-workers not to administer medication or call a doctor, and believed the resident was faking pain, shortly before the resident's death from acute heart failure. She was initially granted unemployment insurance benefits, but the employer objected. An Administrative Law Judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board concluded that her actions constituted disqualifying misconduct, being detrimental to the employer's interest. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, finding substantial evidence supported the conclusion that claimant's conduct went beyond mere negligence.

unemployment insurancemisconductnursing homesupervisory positionterminationemployee conductemployer interestadministrative lawappealcredibility
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billings v. County of St. Lawrence

The petitioner, an unnamed Deputy Sheriff and correction officer for the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department, was terminated after a disciplinary hearing. He was found guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately delivering tobacco to an inmate and for lying during the subsequent investigation, though not for causing an inmate disturbance. Despite a Hearing Officer's recommendation for a two-month suspension, the Undersheriff of St. Lawrence County opted for termination, effective April 22, 1987. The court, in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the determination, finding the evidence sufficient and the termination penalty not excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct in a prison setting and the petitioner's relatively short, unblemished service record.

MisconductTerminationDeputy SheriffCorrection OfficerInmate ConductDisciplinary ActionSubstantial EvidencePenalty ReviewUnprofessional ConductLack of Candor
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00474
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 2024

Matter of Hardy v. Kraham

Nicholas Hardy, a sergeant with the Binghamton Police Department, challenged his employment termination via a CPLR article 78 proceeding. His termination stemmed from an investigation into alleged misconduct, including violations of BPD policies, and subsequent disciplinary charges. A Hearing Officer initially recommended "discipline just short of termination," but respondent Jared M. Kraham, as Mayor, ultimately sustained more charges and ordered termination. Hardy argued violations of due process, bias, improper rejection of the Hearing Officer's conclusions, being found guilty of uncharged misconduct, and a retaliatory motive under Civil Service Law § 75-b. The Appellate Division, Third Department, confirmed the determination, finding no merit to Hardy's arguments regarding due process, bias, uncharged misconduct, or retaliation, and upheld the termination as a proportionate penalty given his history of misconduct.

Police MisconductEmployment TerminationDue ProcessRetaliationCivil Service LawArticle 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDisciplinary ActionPublic Official
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 2,644 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