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

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

IKEA U.S., Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals

This case concerns a petitioner who was found to have violated Labor Law § 191 (1) (a) for failing to pay weekly wages to manual workers. The initial determination by the Commissioner of Labor was confirmed by the Industrial Board of Appeals. The Supreme Court, Nassau County, had previously confirmed this determination and dismissed the petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division reviewed the proceeding, treating it as properly transferred. The Appellate Division found substantial evidence to support the determination that the petitioner employed manual workers and violated the Labor Law by using a bi-weekly payroll scheme instead of weekly payments. Consequently, the Appellate Division vacated the Supreme Court's judgment, confirmed the part of the determination finding the Labor Law violation, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits.

CPLR Article 78Labor Law ViolationWage PaymentManual WorkersBi-weekly PayrollSubstantial Evidence ReviewAppellate DivisionVacated JudgmentConfirmed DeterminationDismissed Petition
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Criminal Contempt Proceedings Against Crawford

This decision addresses a criminal contempt proceeding initiated by the government against Gerald Crawford and Michael Warren for allegedly violating a temporary restraining order (TRO). The TRO, issued in an underlying civil action, prohibited certain conduct outside reproductive health care facilities. Defendants sought dismissal, arguing the TRO had expired under Rule 65(b) before their alleged violations. The Court rejected this, holding that the extended TRO became an appealable preliminary injunction, thus requiring defendants to obey it. The Court further denied defendants' motions for recusal, change of venue, and dismissal based on First Amendment claims, upholding the enforceability of its order.

Criminal ContemptTemporary Restraining Order (TRO)Preliminary InjunctionRule 65(b)Collateral Bar DoctrineFirst Amendment RightsRecusal MotionChange of Venue MotionJudicial AuthorityAppellate Review
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chavis v. New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying

The petitioners, led by Dr. Benjamin Chavis on behalf of the Coalition for Fairness, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York Temporary State Commission on Lobbying and its Executive Director, David Grandeau. They sought to compel the Commission to adopt rules for adjudicatory proceedings compliant with the State Administrative Procedure Act (SAPA) and to nullify a prior determination regarding a failure to file a semiannual report. The court ruled that the Commission was not an "agency" under SAPA due to a lack of rulemaking authority and the power to make final adjudicatory decisions. However, the court converted the proceeding to a declaratory judgment action and declared sections 1-n (b) and (c) of the Lobbying Act unconstitutional for violating federal and state Due Process Clauses by failing to provide notice and a hearing prior to determining a knowing and willful violation. The Commission's subsequently issued guidelines were deemed insufficient to rectify this statutory defect.

Due ProcessConstitutional LawAdministrative LawCPLR Article 78Lobbying ActState Administrative Procedure ActAgency DefinitionUnincorporated AssociationCivil PenaltiesNotice and Hearing
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 29, 1985

Garden State Brickface & Stucco Co. v. Roberts

The petitioner appealed a judgment that dismissed their CPLR Article 78 proceeding. The proceeding sought to review determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Labor concerning prevailing wage violations and a five-year debarment from public works contracts. The appellate court modified the Supreme Court's judgment, annulling the debarment because the underlying wage violation determinations were made simultaneously, not sequentially, which fails to meet the 'knowing repetition' requirement for debarment under Labor Law § 220-b (3) (b). The court affirmed the judgment as modified and declined to consider the petitioner's arguments regarding penalties and interest due to their failure to appear at hearings and raise the issues earlier.

Public Works ContractsPrevailing WagesLabor Law ViolationsDebarmentCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate DecisionSimultaneous DeterminationsKnowing RepetitionAdministrative Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crimmins v. Dennison

Petitioner, a convicted murderer serving an indeterminate sentence for second-degree murder in New York County, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the New York State Board of Parole's November 16, 2004 decision denying him parole release. The Board had previously denied parole in 2000 and 2002, citing his explanation of the crime and a perceived lack of understanding of his actions, despite his institutional adjustments. Petitioner contended that the Board's determination was an abuse of discretion, improperly focused on the underlying offense, and violated statutory procedures and due process by effectively resentencing him. Concurrently, the Respondent cross-moved for a change of venue from New York County to Albany or Cayuga County. The court denied both the petition and the cross-motion, ruling that New York County was the proper venue for the proceeding and upholding the Parole Board's decision as rational and within its discretion, thereby dismissing the proceeding.

Parole ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingMurder ConvictionParole DenialVenue DisputeJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawAbuse of DiscretionExecutive Law § 259-iCPLR 506(b)
References
33
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

Ward v. City of New York

The petitioner's master plumbing license was revoked by the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) for violating the Building Code by supervising an owner's worker instead of her own. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the court found substantial evidence to support the violation. However, the court deemed the penalty of license revocation excessive, citing factors such as it being the petitioner's sole means of livelihood, an otherwise unblemished record since 2001, no harm to the public, and the petitioner's attempt to correct the deficiencies. Consequently, the court annulled the penalty of revocation and remanded the matter to the agency for the imposition of a lesser penalty, while confirming the determination of the violation itself.

Master Plumbing LicenseLicense RevocationNew York City Building CodeAdministrative CodeCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewExcessive PenaltyProfessional MisconductWorker SupervisionAdministrative Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Carmille A. v. David A.

In this Family Court Act article 8 family offense proceeding, the petitioner filed a supplemental petition alleging the respondent willfully violated a modified order of protection on two separate occasions in March 1994. The court found these violations and civilly committed the respondent to consecutive terms of incarceration totaling ten months. The respondent moved for reargument, citing the appellate authority of Matter of Vitti v Vitti, which held that Family Court Act article 8 prohibits consecutive commitments exceeding a total of six months. The presiding judge, Guy P. De Phillips, disagreed with the Vitti ruling, asserting that legislative history and public policy regarding domestic violence support the imposition of consecutive civil commitments for distinct violations, even if the cumulative term exceeds six months, provided they are separate offenses for Sixth Amendment purposes. Consequently, the court denied the respondent's motion for reargument, affirming its authority to impose such consecutive sentences.

Family LawDomestic ViolenceOrder of ProtectionContempt of CourtCivil CommitmentConsecutive SentencesFamily Court ActStatutory InterpretationJudicial DiscretionAppellate Review
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 15,338 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