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. 2021 NY Slip Op 01050 [191 AD3d 884]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 17, 2021

Matter of Faith A. M. (Faith M.)

The mother, Faith M., appealed an order from the Family Court, Kings County, which found her to have derivatively neglected her child, Faith A.M. This finding stemmed from a prior neglect determination in May 2014 concerning her other children due to excessive corporal punishment, which the court deemed proximate in time to the current proceeding. The evidence presented, including statements from siblings, testimony from a school counselor, and observations of injuries, corroborated the ongoing use of excessive corporal punishment. The Family Court's assessment of the mother's credibility, finding her denials incredible, was supported by the record, reinforced by her guilty plea to disorderly conduct related to similar allegations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's order, as the mother failed to provide evidence that the circumstances leading to the neglect finding no longer existed.

Child NeglectDerivative NeglectCorporal PunishmentFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewParental JudgmentPreponderance of EvidenceCredibilityPrior FindingsRisk of Harm
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Soto v. Koehler

The petitioner, Victor Soto, a tenured Correction Officer, was terminated during a probationary period on January 19, 1989, following disciplinary charges related to an auto accident and subsequent alleged excessive lateness. Soto filed a CPLR article 78 petition to challenge his termination, claiming bad faith, arguing that many of his eight latenesses were excusable due to external factors like snowstorms and transportation issues, and emphasizing his otherwise good work record. The Supreme Court dismissed his petition, finding no evidence of bad faith. This appellate decision affirmed the dismissal, ruling that the petitioner failed to prove bad faith, and that termination for lateness is a rational basis, particularly for a probationary employee, under the limited scope of judicial review for such cases. The dissenting opinion argued that the circumstances, including excusable latenesses and strong support from supervisors, demonstrated bad faith.

Correction OfficerProbationary EmploymentEmployee TerminationExcessive LatenessBad Faith AllegationCivil Service LawArticle 78 ReviewUnemployment BenefitsJudicial Review ScopeAppellate Affirmation
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04626 [197 AD3d 518]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 2021

D. S. v. Positive Behavior Support Consulting & Psychological Resources, P.C.

This case involves an appeal by the Port Jefferson School District from an order denying its motion to dismiss a personal injury complaint. The infant plaintiff, a special education student, was allegedly injured by a therapist, Vito Silecchia, during a behavioral therapy session. The plaintiffs sued the School District, among others, alleging Silecchia was an employee or agent. The District contended Silecchia was an independent contractor retained through Positive Behavior Support Consulting and Psychological Resources, P.C. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the dismissal motion, stating that the complaint adequately stated a cause of action and that documentary evidence did not conclusively establish an independent contractor relationship, given provisions in the agreement suggesting the District maintained some control over the services.

Personal InjuryRespondeat SuperiorIndependent ContractorMotion to DismissAppellate ReviewVicarious LiabilitySchool District LiabilitySpecial EducationTherapist NegligenceCPLR 3211 (a) (1)
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. Workers' Compensation Board

A probationary employee's termination by the Workers' Compensation Board was upheld on appeal. The employee initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the dismissal was arbitrary, capricious, and in bad faith, but the Supreme Court dismissed the application. The appellate court affirmed, emphasizing that probationary employees can be terminated without explanation or a hearing unless the discharge is for constitutionally impermissible reasons, legal violations, or bad faith. The petitioner failed to demonstrate bad faith or that the termination was unrelated to job performance, as evidence showed deficiencies in understanding Workers' Compensation Law, lack of improvement after training, and improper conduct.

Employment TerminationProbationary EmployeeUnsatisfactory PerformanceBad FaithCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewWorkers' Compensation BoardCivil Service LawAdministrative LawPublic Employment
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Doolittle v. Lettiere

Petitioner appealed the dismissal of his petition in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. This proceeding challenged the termination of his employment as a Bridge Construction and Maintenance Supervisor at the conclusion of his probationary period. While probationary employees can generally be discharged without a hearing and without a statement of reasons, courts may intervene if the discharge was made in bad faith, with the burden of proof on the employee. The appellate court concluded that the petitioner's submitted evidence, including affidavits from himself and co-workers, was sufficient to raise a question of fact regarding the respondents' bad faith. Consequently, the Supreme Court erred in summarily dismissing the petition, and the matter is remitted for a hearing on the issue of bad faith.

CPLR Article 78Probationary EmploymentEmployment TerminationBad Faith DischargeJudicial ReviewAppellate ProcedureQuestion of FactRemittalSummary DismissalAffidavits
References
7
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 05744 [174 AD3d 1206]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 18, 2019

Matter of Civil Serv. Employees Assn., Local 1000, AFSCME AFL-CIO v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

The case involves Jarred Sansky, a probationary employee, terminated from his position as Cadet Leader 1 by the New York State Office of Children and Family Services. Petitioners, including Sansky and the Civil Service Employees Association, challenged the termination under CPLR article 78, arguing Sansky had completed his probationary term and was dismissed in bad faith or retaliation for reporting neglect. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, finding Sansky was still probationary and petitioners failed to prove bad faith or retaliation. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the dismissal, holding that Sansky's temporary service in a higher position did not automatically count towards his probationary period and that allegations of bad faith or retaliation were unsupported by evidence. Therefore, Sansky, as a probationary employee, was not entitled to a pretermination hearing.

probationary employmentterminationCPLR article 78bad faith dismissalretaliationcivil service lawtemporary appointmentprovisional appointmentNew York State Office of Children and Family ServicesCadet Leader
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07224 [165 AD3d 1558]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 2018

Healthcare Professionals Ins. Co. v. Parentis

This case involves an appeal regarding a declaratory judgment action initiated by Healthcare Professionals Insurance Company (HPI) against Michael A. Parentis and others. The dispute arises from a prior medical malpractice verdict against Parentis totaling $8.6 million, which exceeded his combined $2.3 million primary and excess insurance policies from Medical Liability Mutual Insurance Company (MLMIC) and HPI. Parentis alleged bad faith against both insurers for failing to settle the underlying action within policy limits. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to HPI and MLMIC, dismissing Parentis' bad faith claim. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision, finding that genuine issues of material fact exist concerning whether both HPI and MLMIC acted in bad faith during settlement negotiations, especially during jury deliberations.

Insurance LawBad Faith Insurance ClaimMedical MalpracticeSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewSettlement NegotiationsExcess InsurancePrimary InsuranceJury DeliberationsDuty to Settle
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Raff v. Maggio

David Raff, an arbitrator, initiated an action against Maggio, an employer, to recover unpaid arbitration fees. Maggio had refused to pay his half of the fees stemming from a labor dispute arbitration, despite previous court affirmations of the arbitration award and advice from his own counsel to pay. Raff sought the arbitration fee, interest, and attorney's fees, contending that Maggio's prolonged refusal constituted bad faith. While Maggio eventually conceded his liability for the arbitration fee, interest, and court costs after his appeal to the Supreme Court was denied, he continued to dispute the payment of attorney's fees. The court determined that Maggio's initial and persistent refusal to pay the arbitration fee, based on a meritless defense, amounted to bad faith conduct. Consequently, the court partially granted Raff's motion for summary judgment, awarding him the arbitration fee, interest, court filing costs, and attorney's fees incurred up to the point Maggio filed his answer, marking the cessation of his bad faith actions concerning the fee itself. Maggio's cross-motion for summary judgment was denied.

Arbitrator FeesLabor DisputeSummary JudgmentAttorneys' FeesBad Faith LitigationAmerican Rule (Attorneys' Fees)Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration Award EnforcementFederal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 56Contractual Obligation
References
17
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 05187
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 17, 2015

Matter of Grant v. Town of Lewisboro

Lawrence Grant, a parks maintenance worker for the Town of Lewisboro, had his position abolished when the Town adopted its 2012 budget, eliminating funding. Grant initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, claiming the termination violated Civil Service Law § 75 and sought reinstatement with back pay. The Town presented evidence that the position was abolished in good faith due to budget reductions to promote efficiency and economy. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, denied Grant's petition, finding he failed to prove the Town acted in bad faith. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, concluding that the Town properly abolished the position through budget enactment and Grant did not raise a triable issue of fact regarding bad faith.

Abolition of PositionCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Bad FaithMunicipal BudgetPublic EmploymentParks Maintenance WorkerWestchester CountyAppellate Division
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Higgins v. La Paglia

The document presents a concurring in part and dissenting in part opinion by Mercure, J. P., joined by Lahtinen, J. (concurring). Mercure, J. P. dissents from the majority, arguing that the petitioner, a probationary employee, failed to provide sufficient competent evidence to raise a question of fact regarding whether their discharge was unrelated to work performance, motivated by an impermissible purpose, or made in bad faith. The dissent emphasizes that respondents provided evidence of unsatisfactory job performance, supporting the Supreme Court's initial conclusion that the discharge was made in good faith. Conclusory allegations of discrimination and speculative claims of inadequate training were deemed insufficient to warrant a hearing. Ultimately, the judgment is modified by reversing the dismissal of the petition's claim regarding the arbitrary, capricious, and bad faith termination, remitting the matter to the Supreme Court for further proceedings, and, as so modified, affirmed.

Probationary EmployeeEmployee DischargeWork PerformanceBad Faith TerminationDiscrimination AllegationsAge DiscriminationArbitrary and CapriciousJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAdministrative Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 967 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