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

Louchheim v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioners appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which had denied their CPLR article 78 petition. The petition aimed to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton, dated October 20, 2005. The ZBA's determination had granted NL Housing, LLC, a variance for the enlargement of two structures that served as a labor camp for migrant workers, benefiting from a preexisting nonconforming use. The petitioners argued that this variance violated Southampton Code § 330-167 (B) (1) (a), also known as the 50% rule, which limits nonconforming use expansion to 50% of the floor area as measured from when the use first became nonconforming in 1957. The Appellate Court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, granted the petition, annulled the ZBA's determination, and denied the application for the variance, finding that the ZBA had incorrectly interpreted the zoning ordinance.

ZoningVarianceNonconforming UseMigrant HousingZoning Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation50% RuleSuffolk County
References
7
Case No. 92-CV-1085
Regular Panel Decision

Capriotti v. Consolidated Rail Corp.

Plaintiff Salvatore Capriotti, a yardmaster for Conrail, suffered heart problems exacerbated by stressful work conditions and increased responsibilities after staff cutbacks. He sued Conrail under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) for negligent infliction of emotional distress and a direct physical injury claim. Conrail renewed its motion for summary judgment based on the Supreme Court's reversal in Consolidated Rail Corp. v. Gottshall and Carlisle, which established the "zone of danger" test for emotional distress claims under FELA. The court found Capriotti's claim to be essentially the same as Carlisle's — "too much work, not too dangerous work" — and therefore, he did not meet the "zone of danger" requirement. The court also rejected his claim under the Hours of Service Act, stating that FELA parameters still apply, requiring proof of being in the zone of danger. Consequently, Conrail's motion for summary judgment was granted, and Capriotti's complaint was dismissed.

FELASummary JudgmentEmotional DistressZone of DangerStressful Work ConditionsHeart ConditionHours of Service ActNegligence Per SeRailroad Employment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frangella Mushroom Farms, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

The petitioner, who operates a mushroom growing farm in the Town of Coeymans, sought a special use permit to construct an apartment building for its migrant laborers. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, citing concerns related to aesthetic harmony, property values, safety, and traffic. However, the court found the Board's 17 specific findings to be arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient evidence in the record. The court determined that the proposed housing would not adversely affect the district and would replace existing substandard dwellings without increasing population or traffic. Consequently, the court annulled the Board's determination and mandated the issuance of the special use permit.

Zoning OrdinanceSpecial Use PermitArbitrary and CapriciousLand Use PlanningMigrant HousingAgricultural OperationsJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Town of CoeymansAlbany County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of John Z.

This case involves an appeal from an order recommitting the respondent to petitioner's custody due to a dangerous mental disorder. The respondent, with a history of multiple killings and a prior finding of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect, had his parole revoked after exhibiting aggressive and threatening behavior upon conditional release. The Supreme Court determined he suffered from Antisocial Personality Disorder with narcissistic and paranoid features, which was deemed a dangerous mental disorder justifying civil confinement under CPL 330.20. The appellate court affirmed, rejecting the argument that the diagnosis was legally insufficient and upholding the finding of current dangerousness based on expert testimony, the respondent's history of violence, and his lack of insight into his condition.

dangerous mental disordercivil confinementantisocial personality disordernarcissistic featuresparanoid featuresCPL 330.20recommitmentmental illnessparole revocationexpert testimony
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Genesis of Mount Vernon, N.Y., Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

This case concerns a hybrid proceeding where the petitioner, Genesis project, challenged the denial of building and area variances by the Mt. Vernon Zoning Board of Appeals for a proposed congregate housing facility for the elderly. The petitioner also sought a declaratory judgment that the City of Mt. Vernon Zoning Ordinance's definitions of 'boarding house' and 'family' were unconstitutional. The court found both definitions to be unconstitutionally vague and overbroad, violating the State Due Process Clause. Consequently, the court granted declaratory relief, allowing the petitioner to construct the facility as a two-family house and also granted the area variances, remanding to the Zoning Board for setting reasonable conditions. A claim for damages and attorney's fees was severed for a separate action.

Zoning OrdinanceDue ProcessConstitutional LawDeclaratory JudgmentUse VarianceArea VarianceBoarding HouseFamily DefinitionElderly HousingNot-for-Profit
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Real Estate Board of New York, Inc. v. City of New York

The New York Appellate Division found that the City of New York fully complied with environmental laws (SEQRA and CEQR) when issuing a negative declaration for a proposed zoning amendment in the Garment Center. The amendment aimed to preserve industrial loft space from conversion to office space. The court determined that the Department of City Planning and Department of Environmental Protection had thoroughly reviewed potential environmental impacts and reasonably concluded that the zoning change would not have significant effects requiring an Environmental Impact Statement. Consequently, the court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment that had mandated an EIS and dismissed the consolidated action.

Zoning AmendmentEnvironmental ReviewSEQRACEQRNegative DeclarationGarment CenterLand UseAppellate DecisionUrban PreservationEconomic Impact
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Foley

The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Greenburgh Zoning Board of Appeals' (the board) determination that a drug abuse counseling center was a permitted use for Daytop Village Foundation, Inc. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, annulled the board's decision and remitted the matter for a de novo hearing. Daytop and the board members appealed this decision. The appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order and judgment, confirmed the board's original determination, and dismissed the proceeding on the merits. The court found the board's interpretation of the zoning ordinance, which permitted 'professional office uses,' to be rational and supported by substantial evidence, noting that Daytop's facility was licensed and staffed by professionals.

Zoning OrdinanceProfessional Office UseDrug Abuse Counseling CenterPermitted UseTown of GreenburghZoning Board of AppealsAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationSubstantial EvidenceLand Use
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 1976

Committee for the Betterment of Mount Kisco v. Taylor

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a zoning board's determination regarding a building permit. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially dismissed the petition, a decision that was subsequently affirmed on appeal. The core issue concerned a proposed group home designed to house 10 children and staff within a single-family residential district. The court determined that the group home qualified as a "family" for zoning purposes, citing the precedent set in City of White Plains v Ferraioli which emphasizes internal structure and external appearance akin to a traditional family unit. The decision also distinguished Village of Belle Terre v Boraas, asserting that the group home aligns with the neighborhood's character rather than conflicting with it.

CPLR Article 78Zoning LawGroup HomeSingle-Family Residential DistrictBuilding PermitSocial Services LawDefinition of FamilyMunicipal AuthorityNeighborhood CharacterWestchester County
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cornell University v. Bagnardi

The New York Court of Appeals addressed two consolidated cases involving local zoning regulations and educational institutions' expansion plans. The court held that the presumption of public benefit from educational uses can be rebutted by evidence of a net negative impact on public health, safety, and welfare. Municipalities may impose reasonable special permit conditions to mitigate adverse effects, but cannot require institutions to prove a "need" for expansion, as this criterion is outside the scope of police power. Consequently, the denials of applications by Cornell University and Sarah Lawrence College, which were based on impermissible "need" criteria, were deemed improper. Both cases were remitted to their respective zoning boards for reconsideration under the clarified legal standards.

Zoning RegulationsEducational InstitutionsSpecial PermitsLand UsePolice PowerPublic WelfareHardshipVarianceMootnessRemittal
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 598 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