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. 2020 NY Slip Op 05204 [186 AD3d 1679]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 30, 2020

Matter of Board of Mgrs. of Half Moon Bay Mar. Condominium v. Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Assn., Inc.

This case concerns a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by the Board of Managers of Half Moon Bay Marina Condominium and Maria Elena DiBella against the Board of Directors of Half Moon Bay Homeowners Association, Inc. The dispute arose over the voting rights of Marina directors on the HOA Board, which the HOA Board sought to restrict. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, ruled in favor of the petitioners, compelling the HOA Board to allow unrestricted voting. The Appellate Division affirmed this judgment, determining that the HOA's bylaws regarding voting rights were ambiguous. The court found that extrinsic evidence, including the HOA Board's historical practice, supported the interpretation that all directors had an unrestricted right to vote on all HOA matters.

Bylaws InterpretationVoting RightsCondominium LawHomeowners AssociationCPLR Article 78Contract InterpretationExtrinsic EvidenceBoard of DirectorsAppellate ReviewAmbiguity
References
11
Case No. C-4199
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education of the Union-Endicott Central School District v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The Board of Education of Union-Endicott Central School District initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul a Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) determination that certified the Endicott Teachers' Association as the exclusive negotiating agent for former members of OTASN. The School Board argued that permitting a non-attorney to represent the Teachers' Association violated Judiciary Law §§ 478 and 484, and that PERB's director improperly made the decision instead of the Administrative Law Judge who presided over the hearing. The court agreed with the School Board on both points, finding PERB's rule allowing lay representation to contravene state law and the director's decision arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the court annulled PERB's determination and remanded the matter for a new hearing. Additionally, a motion to dismiss by Kathleen Osiecki, president of OTASN, was granted as OTASN was not formally a party to the proceeding.

labour relationspublic employmentcollective bargainingjudicial reviewPERBnon-attorney representationdue processadministrative law judgeunion certificationarbitrary and capricious
References
6
Case No. 02149
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 02, 2020

Matter of Cody v. Ark Glass & Glazing Corp.

Claimant Scott Cody, a window glazer, sustained two separate work-related back injuries in 1999 and 2015, both leading to permanent partial disability classifications. After the second injury, a WCLJ awarded him 375 weeks of wage loss benefits for a 70% permanent partial disability, but the Workers' Compensation Board (Board) denied further benefits. The Board reasoned that Cody had already been fully compensated by his prior 1999 award, effectively implementing a de facto apportionment by conflating different statutory calculations. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found the Board's reasoning speculative and inappropriate, noting the distinct formulas for pre-cap and current awards and Cody's return to full-time work. Consequently, the Court reversed the Board's denial of benefits, remitted the matter for reinstatement of Cody's wage loss benefits, and allowed for further development of the record on apportionment.

Workers' Compensation LawPermanent Partial DisabilityWage Loss BenefitsApportionmentLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityPrior InjurySuccessive InjuriesDurational CapsWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00900 [213 AD3d 1096]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2023

Matter of Gomez v. Board of Mgrs. of Cipriani

Alberto Gomez, the claimant, sustained work-related injuries in 2017 and sought payment for medical treatment from a New Jersey-licensed physician who was also licensed in New York but not authorized by the Workers' Compensation Board. The employer and its carrier objected to the payment, and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the denial, ruling that the carrier was not liable. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decisions, holding that claimants injured in New York but residing in other states are entitled to treatment from qualified physicians in their home state, even without Board authorization. The court found the Board's interpretation of 12 NYCRR 323.1 to be irrational and unreasonable, remitting the matter for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationMedical TreatmentOut-of-State PhysicianBoard AuthorizationStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewClaimant's RightsRegulatory InterpretationNew Jersey PhysicianNew York Licensing
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 03352 [194 AD3d 1322]
Regular Panel Decision
May 27, 2021

Matter of Kornreich v. Elmont Glass Co., Inc.

Claimant suffered work-related injuries to his neck and back, and his workers' compensation claim was established. He later pleaded guilty to attempted promoting gambling, leading to an inquiry into whether he violated Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found he made false statements on work activity reports and imposed penalties including permanent disqualification from future wage replacement benefits. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the finding of false misrepresentations and that the discretionary penalty was appropriate given his egregious illegal work activity and repeated denials.

Workers' Compensation FraudFalse StatementWage Replacement BenefitsGambling ActivityWork Activity ReportsDiscretionary PenaltyPermanent DisqualificationCredibility IssueSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Danielson v. Joint Board of Coat, Suit & Allied Garment Workers Unions, ILGWU

The Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board filed a petition for a temporary injunction against the Joint Board of Coat, Suit and Allied Garment Workers Union, ILGWU, AFL-CIO. This action stemmed from a charge by Hazantown, Inc., alleging the Joint Board engaged in unfair labor practices by picketing for recognition without filing an election petition within the statutory thirty-day period. Hazantown, a New York garment manufacturer utilizing contractors, became the target of picketing aimed at securing a "jobbers' agreement," which would obligate Hazantown to deal exclusively with union contractors, despite the Joint Board's disclaimer of interest in representing Hazantown's direct employees. The picketing demonstrably hindered Hazantown's business operations by inducing a stoppage of deliveries. Despite the complex statutory interpretation issues regarding Sections 8(b)(7)(C) and 8(e) of the National Labor Relations Act, the District Court, acknowledging its narrow jurisdiction, found "reasonable cause" to believe an unfair labor practice had occurred. Consequently, to maintain the status quo pending a full adjudication by the Board, the court granted the temporary injunction.

National Labor Relations ActUnfair Labor PracticeTemporary InjunctionPicketingLabor Union RecognitionGarment Industry ExemptionJobber's AgreementNLRA Section 8(b)(7)(C)NLRA Section 8(e)District Court Jurisdiction
References
7
Case No. ADJ2411163 (STK 0151867) ADJ4480333 (STK 0153205) ADJ2289502 (STK 0166931) ADJ3381209 (STK 0166939)
Regular
Nov 01, 2010

JAMES HERNANDEZ vs. GALLO GLASS COMPANY

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied Gallo Glass Company's petition for reconsideration of a findings and award. The Board affirmed the finding of 57.5% permanent disability for bilateral shoulders, neck, and back injuries resulting from cumulative trauma, based on parties' stipulations and credible medical evidence. The Board found no error in the rating instructions, as they followed the parties' stipulation regarding Dr. Kucera's report. Finally, the Board concluded Gallo Glass failed to meet its burden of proof to establish overlap for apportionment under Labor Code § 4664, therefore no reduction for prior awards was granted.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardStipulationsCumulative TraumaApportionmentPermanent DisabilityDisability Evaluation UnitRating SpecialistLabor Code Section 4664
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Public Employment Relations Board v. Board of Education

The concurring opinion, authored by Judge Fuchsberg, affirms the ultimate disposition of the case, upholding the Public Employment Relations Board's (PERB) order. The opinion delves into the critical distinction between an administrative agency exceeding its jurisdiction and merely committing an error of law. It argues that an order issued without statutory power or in excess thereof is inherently void and subject to collateral attack, even if statutory time limits for direct review have passed. Judge Fuchsberg supports this jurisdictional argument by referencing several prior cases, including *Matter of Foy v Schechter* and *Matter of Guardian Life Ins. Co. v Bohlinger*. Ultimately, the opinion concludes that the PERB's remedial orders were fully authorized due to a specific statutory violation, despite the complex jurisdictional challenges raised.

Public Employment Relations BoardAdministrative LawJurisdictionCollateral AttackStatutory InterpretationError of LawBack PayCivil Service LawArticle 78PERB
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fortunato v. Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner appealed two rulings: a Supreme Court judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 application to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to renew his license, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The Board had denied license renewal due to petitioner's failure to provide records, reapply, and demonstrate competency. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, ruling that the proceeding was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations. Additionally, the court found that mandamus was not appropriate for a discretionary act and that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious.

License RenewalMandamusCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardStatute of LimitationsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDiscretionary ActNonattorney Representative
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 09, 1979

Hogg v. Workers' Compensation Board

An attorney, acting as the petitioner, sought legal fees from the Workers' Compensation Board for services he provided to clients whose disability benefits were reinstated after his intervention. When the Board did not act on his requests, he initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel the Board to consider his claims and establish a proper procedure for attorney fee applications. Special Term dismissed his petition, a decision subsequently affirmed on appeal. The appellate court ruled that the Board's prior denial of his fee requests rendered the issue of compelling consideration moot. Furthermore, the court concluded it lacked the authority to order the Board to create a new application procedure for counsel fees.

Attorney feesDisability benefitsWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR Article 78MootnessJudicial authorityAdministrative procedureAppealDismissalLegal representation
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 22,654 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