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
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Times Mirror Magazines, Inc. v. Houghton

This case concerns a petition to annul a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights, which had found that the petitioner, an employer, discriminated against an employee (complainant-respondent) based on age. The Supreme Court, New York County, transferred the petition, which was subsequently granted. The court annulled the Division's determination, concluding that there was insufficient evidence to support the finding of age discrimination. The record indicated that the complainant was terminated due to a failure to meet sales quotas and performance expectations, rather than age-related reasons. Evidence presented highlighted that a younger predecessor was also terminated for poor performance, the complainant's performance was significantly worse than her peers, she was hired at age 53, and the workplace had a diverse age demographic with older, high-performing employees.

Age DiscriminationEmployment TerminationSales PerformanceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawHuman Rights LawExecutive LawEvidentiary StandardsBurden of ProofAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioners challenged the Broome County Legislature's negative declaration of environmental impact for a proposed public safety facility, which included a 400-bed jail and other county offices in the Town of Dickinson, Broome County. The proposed complex was classified as a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), presumptively requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court initially annulled the negative declaration but denied injunctive relief. This appellate court affirmed the annulment of the negative declaration and further directed respondents to investigate and discuss the storage of petroleum/chemical products and sewage treatment capacity within the required EIS, modifying the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also upheld the denial of petitioners' request for injunctive relief, noting that SEQRA mandates environmental review completion before any construction.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementPublic Safety FacilityBroome CountyCPLR Article 78Cross AppealsAnnulmentInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. 2012 NY Slip Op 31770OJ
Regular Panel Decision

Floyd v. City of New York

The Supreme Court, New York County, issued judgments annulling mayoral personnel orders No. 2012/1 and 2012/2, dated April 11, 2012. These orders reclassified ungraded civil service titles, subject to prevailing wage bargaining under Labor Law § 220, to graded workers under the New York City Collective Bargaining Law. The annulment was affirmed because the City failed to comply with Civil Service Law § 20, which mandates notice, a public hearing, and State Civil Service Commission approval for such reclassifications. The concurring justices were Mazzarelli, J.P., Andrias, DeGrasse, Freedman, and Manzanet-Daniels, JJ.

annulmentmayoral orderscivil serviceprevailing wagecollective bargaininglabor lawcivil service lawreclassificationpublic hearingstate civil service commission
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Gallo v. LiMandri

This case concerns the appeal of a decision to annul the revocation of a petitioner's hoist machine operator (HMO) license. The respondent Commissioner had revoked the license based on the petitioner's prior mail fraud conviction, stemming from an alleged scheme involving preferential union job assignments. The Supreme Court annulled the revocation and ordered a one-year suspension, a decision unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The court found the Commissioner's revocation excessive given the specific circumstances of the petitioner's conviction, noting a lack of evidence for bribes or kickbacks and the questionable legal theory behind the mail fraud charge after the Skilling v United States decision. The court distinguished the petitioner's culpability from other cases involving more severe offenses like extortion.

License RevocationMail FraudHoist Machine OperatorMoral CharacterAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUnion Job AssignmentsOrganized CrimeAdministrative DiscretionPenalty Excessive
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2004

LoPrete v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case concerns a petitioner's employment termination pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The petitioner, a motor vehicle operator, was injured on duty and granted a one-year leave of absence, which was briefly extended. However, the petitioner exceeded the authorized absence by six additional days, thereby forfeiting the right to reinstatement, consistent with Matter of Allen v Howe. A CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul this termination was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. This denial was subsequently and unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, which also found the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination irrelevant to the reinstatement issue.

Employment TerminationCivil Service LawLeave of AbsenceReinstatement RightsCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation IrrelevanceUnauthorized AbsenceAppellate AffirmanceNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 08, 1993

Thomas v. Abate

The Supreme Court, New York County, affirmed a judgment denying the petition of a probationary correction officer seeking to annul her termination and reinstatement with back pay. The petitioner was terminated due to extensive absenteeism, having accrued 376 sick days in 26 months, and departmental medical personnel deemed her medically unfit for full duty. The court found the termination was not arbitrary, capricious, or made in bad faith, and that the petitioner was not entitled to an evidentiary hearing. The appellate court upheld this decision, emphasizing that extensive absences and physical incapacity are valid, good-faith bases for terminating a probationary employee without a hearing.

Probationary employmentemployee terminationabsenteeismmedical unfitnessNew York City Department of Correctionadministrative appealjudicial reviewgood faithbad faithreinstatement
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.

This proceeding sought to annul a determination of no probable cause by the New York State Division of Human Rights, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The petitioner alleged racial discrimination by Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation and United Rubber Workers, Local No. 135. The court ruled that a prior Federal District Court dismissal of the petitioner's identical discrimination claim against the same defendants, under federal law, barred the instant state action based on the doctrine of res judicata. The elements required for establishing a prima facie case in both federal and state actions were deemed nearly identical. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence supported the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination.

Human Rights LawRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRes JudicataExecutive LawPrior AdjudicationState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardNew YorkFederal Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 13, 2000

Spitzer v. Farrell

The New York City Department of Sanitation (DOS) implemented an interim plan to transport Manhattan's solid waste to New Jersey, necessitating an environmental review under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). DOS issued a negative declaration, asserting no significant environmental impact. The petitioner challenged this, arguing that DOS failed to adequately consider the impact of PM2.5 emissions, relying instead on outdated PM10 standards. The Supreme Court initially denied the petition. This court reversed that decision, finding that DOS's failure to take a "hard look" at potential PM2.5 impacts was an error of law under SEQRA. Consequently, the negative declaration was annulled, and DOS was directed to conduct a new environmental assessment addressing all relevant concerns, including PM2.5 emissions.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationAir QualityPM2.5 EmissionsPM10 StandardsDiesel EmissionsWaste ManagementJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. Industrial Board of Appeals

The Commissioner of Labor initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a determination by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA) which granted Soft Images, Inc. a permit for industrial homework. The Commissioner had initially denied the permit, arguing a lack of statutory authority to issue individual homework permits and that her determinations were not subject to IBA review. The Special Term dismissed the Commissioner's application. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, rejecting the Commissioner's arguments. The court found that the Commissioner has the authority to grant exceptions under the Labor Law and that the IBA is statutorily empowered to review, revoke, or modify the Commissioner's orders.

Industrial Homework PermitLabor Law ComplianceJudicial Review of Administrative DecisionsIndustrial Board of Appeals AuthorityCommissioner of Labor DiscretionStatutory InterpretationAdministrative ProcedureNew York Labor LawPermit Denial AppealSoft Images Inc.
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 385 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