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
Mar 26, 1971

Maurizio v. Hoberman

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, dated March 26, 1971, concerning the rating examination papers of civil service workers. The initial judgment confirmed a Special Referee's report but was subsequently modified. The modification involved remanding the matter to the respondents for reconsideration, with the judgment then affirmed as modified. The court underscored that the duty to establish requirements for promotional examinations lies solely with the respondents, and judicial interference is unwarranted if exercised fairly. Although the respondents did not participate in the appeal, implying agreement with the Special Term's views, the courts reaffirmed their inability to assume the respondents' powers or duties.

Civil ServicePromotional ExaminationExamination PapersJudicial ReviewRemandSupreme CourtReferee ReportAdministrative DiscretionJudicial RestraintNew York
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 14, 1988

Levitt v. Civil Service Commission

The City of New York appealed a Supreme Court judgment that affirmed the Civil Service Commission's decision to reject the reclassification of the deckhand position from the competitive to the noncompetitive civil service class. Petitioners argued that the Commission applied an overly strict standard, acted inconsistently with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act and the NY Constitution, based its decision solely on a presumption despite expert opinions, and failed to adequately state its reasoning. The Appellate Division found that the Commission properly used the term "compelling" to reflect the constitutional preference for competitive examinations and that its decision, while brief, allowed for judicial review. Citing the public safety roles of deckhands, similar to police and firefighters, the court concluded that competitive examinations are feasible and petitioners failed to demonstrate an impediment to compliance with job-relatedness requirements.

Civil Service LawJob ReclassificationCompetitive ExaminationNoncompetitive ClassPublic SafetyDeckhand PositionAppellate ReviewCivil Rights Act Title VIINew York ConstitutionArbitrary Determination
References
5
Case No. 267 AD2d 668
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 1999

In re the Arbitration between Civil Service Employees Ass'n & State

This case involves an appeal from a judgment of the Supreme Court concerning two proceedings. Proceeding No. 1, initiated by Civil Service Employees Association, Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO (CSEA) on behalf of Garmon Carnibucci, sought to confirm an arbitration award regarding the restoration of sick leave accruals for Carnibucci, who was terminated by the Division For Youth (DFY) under Civil Service Law § 71. Proceeding No. 2, commenced by Carnibucci, sought to hold DFY in contempt for allegedly failing to comply with a prior judgment mandating back pay and benefits. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award and found no contempt, prompting an appeal from the petitioners. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal in proceeding No. 1, determining that CSEA was not an aggrieved party since the relief it sought (confirmation of the award) was granted. In proceeding No. 2, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding no error in the appointment of a Referee to assess back pay calculations and concluding that DFY was not in contempt due to the lack of specificity in the prior judgment regarding the computation of back pay.

arbitration awardback pay disputesick leave accrualscontempt proceedingCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78Civil Service Lawpublic employmentworkers' compensation boardjudicial review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 09, 2002

Saunders v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case involves an order and judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning a proceeding under CPLR article 78. The petition was granted to the extent of enjoining the respondent from appointing temporary employees in disregard of Civil Service Law § 64 (1) and directing an amendment to its policy regarding Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) to include part-time employees. However, the application for lost wages and benefits on behalf of petitioner Patino was denied. The court unanimously affirmed the decision, stating that the injunctive relief was properly granted as the respondent failed to articulate an important need for open-ended temporary employment consistent with Civil Service Law. The court also rejected the argument that Civil Service Law § 75 (1) (c) applies only to full-time employees, affirming that no hearing was required for Patino's termination under the applicable collective bargaining agreements.

Temporary EmployeesCivil Service LawInjunctive ReliefPart-time EmployeesLost WagesCollective Bargaining AgreementsTerminationPublic PolicyJudicial ReviewAdministrative Law
References
4
Case No. 99-11240 B, 08-CV-774A, Adv. No. 01-1193B
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2010

McHale v. Boulder Capital LLC (In Re 1031 Tax Group, LLC)

This memorandum opinion addresses the calculation of prejudgment interest on fraudulent transfer claims recovered by Gerard A. McHale, Jr., P.A., as Trustee for the 1031 Debtors Liquidation Trust, against the Boulder Defendants. The Court determined that three transfers in 2005 and 2006 were fraudulent under section 548(a) of the Bankruptcy Code. It concludes that the Trustee is entitled to prejudgment interest from the adversary proceeding commencement date, March 20, 2009, at the bank prime loan rates in effect on the dates of each transfer (6.5%, 8.0%, and 8.25%). Additionally, the Trustee is entitled to post-judgment interest at the federal judgment rate, and a final judgment is to be entered pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 54(b).

Prejudgment InterestFraudulent TransferBankruptcy CodeAdversary ProceedingFederal Judgment RateMarket Rate InterestPrime RateRule 54(b) JudgmentTrustee RecoveryBankruptcy Court
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nassau Chapter of Civil Service Employees Ass'n v. County of Nassau

This case involves an appeal concerning the commencement of county service for employees initially hired under the Comprehensive Employment and Training Act (CETA) for purposes of a collective bargaining agreement between the Nassau Chapter of the Civil Service Employees Association, Inc. (plaintiff) and the County of Nassau (defendant). The plaintiff sought to include CETA employment prior to December 31, 1976, as commencement of county service under 'Plan A' of the agreement. The defendant appealed a Supreme Court judgment that had initially granted this relief. The appellate court reversed the judgment, holding that CETA employment, despite county supervision, should not be considered the commencement of county service for employment agreement purposes due to its temporary nature. The court concluded that service should only be deemed to begin when a position is obtained under Civil Service Law procedures. Consequently, CETA employees hired by the county after December 31, 1976, are excluded from Plan A, regardless of prior CETA service.

CETA EmploymentCivil Service LawCollective Bargaining AgreementCounty Service CommencementTemporary EmploymentIncremental Salary PlanPublic Sector EmploymentEmployee Benefits EligibilityAppellate DivisionNassau County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderson v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers

This opinion addresses a declaratory judgment action brought by Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Madison Square Garden Corporation (collectively, "the Garden") against Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers ("Local 3"). The Garden sought a declaration that they are not liable to Local 3 for contribution or indemnification concerning a judgment previously entered against Local 3 in antecedent civil rights litigation (Ingram v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc. and Anderson v. Madison Square Garden Center, Inc.). In those prior actions, Local 3 was found liable for intentional discriminatory hiring practices under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and 42 U.S.C. § 1981. The Court, presided over by Judge Sand in the Southern District of New York, granted the Garden's motion for summary judgment. The decision ruled that federal law governs, precluding contribution and indemnification under Title VII based on Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers. Furthermore, even if contribution were theoretically available under § 1981, it would not lie for an intentional tortfeasor, and any such claim would be defeated by a release given to the Garden by the original plaintiffs. Indemnity was also denied on similar grounds, emphasizing that an intentional tortfeasor cannot escape liability for deliberate wrongdoing.

Declaratory JudgmentSummary JudgmentContributionIndemnificationCivil Rights Act of 1964Title VII42 U.S.C. § 1981Employment DiscriminationIntentional TortFederal Common Law
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 19, 2015

Matter of Suit-Kote Corporation v. Rivera

Petitioner, a highway construction contractor, challenged the prevailing wage rates set by the respondent for operating engineers, laborers, and teamsters for public work projects. Petitioner alleged that respondent failed to ensure that the collective bargaining agreements (CBAs) used to determine these rates covered at least 30% of the workers, as required by Labor Law § 220. The Supreme Court dismissed the petition and denied petitioner's request for disclosure. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court holding that the burden of proving that less than 30% of workers were covered rests with the employer. The appellate court also found the respondent's method for determining wage rates was not arbitrary or capricious and that the request for disclosure was overly broad, thus upholding the denial.

Prevailing WagePublic Work ProjectsCollective Bargaining AgreementsLabor Law ComplianceBurden of ProofDisclosureCPLR Article 78 ProceedingAdministrative ReviewWage Rate DeterminationHighway Construction
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Board of Education of Yonkers City School District v. Yonkers Municipal Civil Service Commission

The Board of Education of the Yonkers City School District initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to review the Yonkers Municipal Civil Service Commission's determination. The Commission had reinstated Michael DeMuro, a custodial worker, after charges of incompetence and misconduct. This case is a further review following a prior remittal where the Commission violated Civil Service Law § 76 (2) by considering external evidence. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, annulled the Commission's latest determination and transferred the case. This Court (Appellate Division) found the transfer improper as the 'substantial evidence' standard was not applicable. The Court annulled the Commission's determination, vacated the Supreme Court's judgment, denied the cross-petition, and remitted the matter to the Commission for a third determination in strict compliance with Civil Service Law § 76.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Administrative LawJudicial ReviewDue ProcessRemittalAnnulmentDisciplinary ProceedingCustodial WorkerIncompetence
References
3
Case No. 1:11-CV-1530 (MAD/CFH)
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 24, 2018

Police Benevolent Ass'n of N.Y.S., Inc. v. Cuomo

Plaintiffs, including the Civil Service Employees Association and retired state employees, filed a complaint seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, and money damages, against the State of New York and various officials. They challenged a unilateral increase in health insurance contribution rates effective October 1, 2011, alleging violations of the Contracts Clause, Due Process Clause of the U.S. Constitution, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and New York State Constitution, along with breach of contract and Civil Service Law § 167. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing no contractual right to perpetually fixed rates, no substantial impairment, and that the action served a legitimate public purpose amidst a fiscal crisis. The Court granted summary judgment to the Defendants, finding no vested contractual right to fixed premium contribution rates and that the state's actions were reasonable and necessary.

Health Insurance PremiumsRetiree BenefitsCollective Bargaining AgreementsContracts ClauseDue Process ClauseSummary JudgmentFiscal CrisisState EmployeesNew York State ConstitutionCivil Service Law
References
85
Showing 1-10 of 11,022 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