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

Taylor v. State University

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed her CPLR article 78 petition. She sought to annul the determination of respondents, State University of New York, Upstate Medical University, to terminate her probationary employment. The Appellate Division unanimously affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court reiterated that probationary civil service employees can be dismissed for nearly any or no reason, without a right to challenge, absent a showing of bad faith or an improper reason. The burden of proving such bad faith rests with the employee, and mere assertion is insufficient to meet this burden. The court concluded the petitioner failed to sustain this burden and found the termination conformed to applicable regulations, specifically 4 NYCRR 4.5 [b] [5].

Probationary EmploymentCivil ServiceTerminationBad FaithCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewPublic EmploymentSUNYAdministrative LawEmployment Law
References
13
Case No. 03-02-00747-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 06, 2003

UNITED SERVICES AUTO. ASS'N v. Strayhorn

This appeal addresses a tax refund claim by United Services Automobile Association (USAA) against the Comptroller of Public Accounts of Texas, asserting exemption from sales and use taxes based on repealed sections of the Texas Insurance Code (former articles 4.10 and 4.11). USAA contended that these provisions, which specified 'no other tax' than a gross receipts tax, exempted them from all other state taxes not expressly provided for in the insurance code. The district court denied USAA's motion for summary judgment and granted the Comptroller's, ruling that the insurance code provisions did not exempt USAA from sales and use taxes. On appeal, the Court of Appeals of Texas, Austin, affirmed the lower court's judgment. The court concluded that the tax exemption language in the former articles 4.10 and 4.11 was narrowly intended to replace general occupation and franchise taxes, and did not apply to later-enacted taxes of general applicability like sales and use taxes, which did not exist when the original exemptions were created.

Insurance TaxSales and Use TaxTax ExemptionStatutory ConstructionLegislative IntentTexas Insurance CodeGross Receipts TaxOccupation TaxFranchise TaxAppellate Review
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 21, 1983

People v. Alyakoub

The defendant, Justice Alyakoub, was apprehended at Kennedy Airport with a significant amount of marihuana and subsequently pleaded guilty to criminal possession in the first degree. A plea bargain for a split sentence of five years' probation with six months' jail time was initially agreed upon. However, the court identified an incongruity in Penal Law § 70.00(4), which ostensibly excluded certain marihuana offenses under Article 221 from its alternative definite sentencing provisions, potentially mandating a harsher sentence than for more serious concentrated cannabis offenses under Article 220. Judge Cornelius J. O’Brien's opinion explored whether this legislative oversight violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Applying a rational basis test, the court found no legitimate state purpose for the discriminatory treatment and, to avoid unconstitutionality, construed Penal Law § 70.00(4) to include class C felonies specified in Article 221, thereby upholding the plea bargain and sentencing the defendant to the agreed-upon split sentence.

Criminal LawDrug OffensesMarihuana PossessionConstitutional ChallengeEqual ProtectionStatutory ConstructionSentencingPlea AgreementsNew York Penal LawJudicial Interpretation
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Ruben G. (Claudia G.)

The petitioner appealed orders from the Family Court, Kings County, which dismissed petitions filed under Family Court Act article 10 alleging neglect due to domestic violence against Claudia G. and Leon T. The appellate court reversed the December 4, 2014, order, finding that the petitioner had established a prima facie case of neglect against both respondents. Evidence included Claudia G.'s admission to an emergency room social worker that the children witnessed Leon T. abusing her, and Claudia G.'s failure to follow a safety plan. The petitions were reinstated, and the case was remitted to the Family Court for further proceedings.

Family LawChild NeglectDomestic ViolencePrima Facie CaseFamily Court Act Article 10Appellate ReviewOrder ReversalCase RemittalEvidence AdmissibilityWitness Testimony
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United Services Automobile Ass'n v. Strayhorn

This case concerns an appeal by USAA for a tax refund of sales and use taxes paid from 1994 to 1999. USAA argued that repealed sections of the Texas Insurance Code, specifically former articles 4.10 and 4.11, which contained a 'no other tax' clause, exempted them from all state taxes not expressly provided in the insurance code. The Comptroller contended that this language only applied to occupation and franchise taxes. The district court ruled in favor of the Comptroller, and the appellate court affirmed this judgment, determining that the tax exemptions in the former insurance code articles were narrowly intended to replace general occupation and franchise taxes and did not extend to later-enacted taxes of general applicability like sales and use taxes, which did not exist at the time the exemption was originally granted in 1907.

Tax exemptionStatutory interpretationSales and use taxInsurance lawLegislative intentGross receipts taxOccupation taxFranchise taxTexas taxationAppellate review
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 25, 1993

Martin v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a permanent custodial worker, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a February 25, 1993, determination by the Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District. This determination found him guilty of misconduct and dismissed him from his position. The court confirmed the Board's determination, dismissing the petitioner's proceeding on the merits. The court ruled that Civil Service Law § 50 (4) did not bar the Board from terminating the petitioner for material misrepresentations on his employment applications, as the Board, as the employer, could bring charges under Civil Service Law § 75. Additionally, a Yonkers City Court report detailing the petitioner's criminal history was deemed properly admitted, and the Board's determination was found to be supported by substantial evidence.

Article 78 ProceedingMisconductDismissal from EmploymentMaterial MisrepresentationEmployment Application FraudCivil Service LawAdministrative HearingSubstantial EvidenceAdmissibility of EvidenceCriminal History Report
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Grasso & Grasso

This case involves appeals stemming from a CPLR article 75 proceeding concerning an arbitration award between family members, the Grassos. Initially, the Supreme Court partially vacated the arbitration award, which was later modified by the Appellate Division, reinstating a provision for an arbitration hearing to determine asset valuation. During these proceedings, petitioners successfully moved to hold Joseph F. Grasso Jr. in contempt for non-compliance, leading to a judgment against him. On appeal, the court determined that the Supreme Court should have vacated its judgment upon reconsideration, especially after the Appellate Division's decision to reinstate the arbitration provision. Consequently, the judgments against Grasso Jr. were vacated, and the matter of any final judgment was held in abeyance pending further arbitration to determine the value of Trans-American.

Arbitration AwardCPLR Article 75Contempt ProceedingJudgment VacationReconsideration MotionAppellate ReviewEstate LawFamily DisputeArbitration EnforcementOffsetting Awards
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cleary v. Board of Education

The petitioner, a substitute school teacher, sought retroactive membership in the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System after the enactment of Retirement and Social Security Law § 803. Respondent, her employer, denied her application. Petitioner then initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court granted, annulling the Hearing Officer's determination due to lack of a rational basis. The respondent appealed this decision. The Appellate Court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that the Hearing Officer's finding that the petitioner participated in a procedure requiring a formal decision to join the retirement system lacked a rational basis, as the evidence presented by the respondent, including W-4 forms, personnel notations, and general office practice testimony, was insufficient to meet the burden.

Retroactive membershipTeachers’ Retirement SystemCPLR article 78Rational basis reviewStandard office practiceEvidence sufficiencyConstitutional challengeSubstitute teacherPublic retirement systemNew York law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Logan & Kanawha Coal Co. v. Banque Francaise Du Commerce Exterieur

Plaintiff Logan & Kanawha Coal Company, Inc. (L&K) sued Banque Francaise du Commerce Exterieur (the Bank) alleging wrongful pledge of a coal invoice by former defendant CTC-Minemet, Inc. as collateral, claiming the money was due to L&K. L&K asserted claims under UCC Article 9 (invalid security interest), conspiracy to defraud, New York General Business Law Section 349, and the International Banking Act. The court denied the Bank's motion for summary judgment on the UCC Article 9 and conspiracy claims, citing genuine issues of material fact regarding CTC's rights in the collateral and allowing further discovery. Conversely, the court granted the Bank's motion to dismiss the claims under New York General Business Law Section 349, deeming it inapplicable to business-to-business disputes, and the International Banking Act, finding no implied private right of action. Consequently, plaintiff's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied, and the parties were instructed to prepare for trial on the remaining claims.

Secured TransactionsUniform Commercial Code Article 9Agency RelationshipConspiracy to DefraudNew York General Business Law Section 349International Banking ActImplied Private Right of ActionSummary Judgment MotionMotion to DismissContract Dispute
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ley v. Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A

Rhonda P. Ley, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board, filed a petition against the Rochester Regional Joint Board, Local 14A (Union) seeking a preliminary injunction. Ley alleged that Article XXII of the collective bargaining agreement between the Union and Xerox Corporation (Employer) constituted an unlawful 'union signatory' agreement under Section 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act. Furthermore, Ley claimed that the Union's continued attempts to enforce Article XXII violated Sections 8(b)(4)(ii)(A) and (B) of the Act. The Union argued that Article XXII was a lawful work preservation provision. The Court found reasonable cause to believe the Union was violating the Act and that a preliminary injunction was just and proper to prevent further statutory violations and maintain public interest. Consequently, the preliminary injunction was granted, enjoining the Union from enforcing Article XXII.

Labor LawPreliminary InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeNational Labor Relations ActUnion Signatory AgreementWork PreservationCollective Bargaining AgreementSubcontractingArbitrationDistrict Court
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 2,415 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