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

In re Arbitration Between Monroe County Deputy Sheriffs' Ass'n & Monroe County

The petitioner, representing Deputy Sheriffs, challenged an arbitration award concerning holiday pay. Five Deputy Sheriffs, scheduled to work on July 4, 2011, received only eight hours of holiday pay despite being granted the day off, not their regular shift pay plus holiday pay. The petitioner argued that the collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249 mandated additional payment. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding neither required the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed this award, and the appellate court affirmed, finding no excess of arbitral power, no irrational construction of the CBA, and no violation of public policy.

Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievanceArbitration AwardPublic PolicyMilitary LawHoliday PayDeputy SheriffsCPLR Article 75AffirmanceAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. CA 13-01106
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2014

MONROE COUNTY DEPUTY SHERIFF'S, MTR. OF

Petitioner, a bargaining representative for Deputy Sheriffs, sought to vacate an arbitration award that denied a grievance concerning holiday pay for five members on July 4, 2011. The Deputy Sheriffs were granted the day off with pay but were not compensated for their regular shifts in addition to the holiday pay, which petitioner alleged violated their collective bargaining agreement and Military Law § 249. The arbitrator denied the grievance, concluding that neither the CBA nor Military Law § 249 mandated the additional payment. The Supreme Court confirmed the arbitration award. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decision, finding the arbitrator did not exceed his authority, his construction of the CBA was not irrational, and the award did not violate public policy.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementHoliday Pay DisputeMilitary Law BenefitsGrievance DenialDeputy SheriffsPublic PolicyVacate ArbitrationAppellate ReviewLabor Relations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billings v. County of St. Lawrence

The petitioner, an unnamed Deputy Sheriff and correction officer for the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department, was terminated after a disciplinary hearing. He was found guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately delivering tobacco to an inmate and for lying during the subsequent investigation, though not for causing an inmate disturbance. Despite a Hearing Officer's recommendation for a two-month suspension, the Undersheriff of St. Lawrence County opted for termination, effective April 22, 1987. The court, in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the determination, finding the evidence sufficient and the termination penalty not excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct in a prison setting and the petitioner's relatively short, unblemished service record.

MisconductTerminationDeputy SheriffCorrection OfficerInmate ConductDisciplinary ActionSubstantial EvidencePenalty ReviewUnprofessional ConductLack of Candor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connolly v. Williams

The court unanimously confirmed the determination of the Deputy Chief Administrative Judge, which found the petitioner guilty of misconduct and terminated his employment as a court officer. The misconduct involved unwanted physical contact and sexually suggestive remarks directed at three female co-workers. The petition challenging this determination was denied, and the proceeding brought under CPLR article 78 was dismissed. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct findings and that the penalty of dismissal was not unduly harsh. It also ruled that the petitioner's due process rights were not violated by the hearing officer's in camera review of investigative files or the denial of an adjournment to subpoena additional witnesses.

MisconductEmployment TerminationCourt OfficerSexual HarassmentDue ProcessDisciplinary ActionAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 78Substantial EvidenceFairness of Penalty
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Monroe County Deputy Sheriff's Ass'n & Monroe County/Monroe County Sheriff

This case involves an appeal from an order of the Supreme Court, Monroe County, which had denied a petition to confirm an arbitration award and granted a cross-petition to vacate it. The arbitration award mandated that Monroe County provide firearms and training to its deputies in the Civil Bureau of the Monroe County Sheriff's office. The Supreme Court had ruled that the award contravened public policy by infringing upon the Sheriff's discretionary authority under Judiciary Law § 400. However, the appellate court disagreed, concluding that the public policy exception did not meet the stringent criteria for overturning an arbitration award. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's order, thereby confirming the original arbitration award and denying the cross-petition.

Arbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionCollective Bargaining AgreementMonroe County SheriffCivil Bureau DeputiesFirearms TrainingHealth and SafetyAppellate Court DecisionVacating Arbitration AwardConfirming Arbitration Award
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Parris v. New York State Department Correctional Services

Antoine Parris, a pro se plaintiff, sued Commissioner Brian Fischer, Superintendent William Lee, and Deputy Superintendent Edward Burnett under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging an Eighth Amendment violation for failure to protect him from a stabbing by another inmate and state law negligence claims. The defendants moved to dismiss for failure to state a claim and lack of exhaustion of administrative remedies. The court denied the motion to dismiss on exhaustion grounds due to ambiguity in the complaint. However, the court granted the motion to dismiss the federal claims, finding that Parris failed to allege sufficient facts to establish deliberate indifference by the defendants or their personal involvement in an Eighth Amendment violation. The plaintiff's state law claims were also dismissed for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, as New York Corrections Law § 24 provides immunity for DOCCS employees.

Prisoner RightsEighth Amendment ViolationDeliberate IndifferenceFailure to ProtectPrison Litigation Reform ActAdministrative ExhaustionSupervisory LiabilitySection 1983Motion to DismissPro Se Litigation
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cady v. Andrews

Gerald A. Cady, a Broome County Deputy Sheriff, suffered injuries in a patrol car accident in 1979. He and his wife sued Sheriff Andrews and the County of Broome for negligence in vehicle maintenance. Defendants moved for summary judgment, citing the Workers' Compensation Law and constitutional immunity for the county. The court granted the motion, dismissing the complaint against the county due to constitutional immunity and the inapplicability of Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388 to police vehicles. The action against Sheriff Andrews was also dismissed, with the court finding the Workers' Compensation Law to be a bar given the deputy's effective joint employment.

Workers' CompensationGovernmental ImmunityVicarious LiabilitySheriff's DepartmentPolice VehiclesVehicle and Traffic LawConstitutional LawEmployment StatusSummary Judgment
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tarabocchia v. John W. McGrath Corp.

This case addresses cross-motions for summary judgment concerning whether an injury falls under the Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation Act. The plaintiff previously received state workmen's compensation but was denied federal compensation by a Deputy Commissioner, who found the injury did not occur on navigable waters. The injury happened when the plaintiff fell from a skid attached to a pier. The District Court affirmed the Deputy Commissioner's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review. The court distinguished this case from a precedent where the injury involved striking water. Consequently, the plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was denied, and the defendants' motions were granted.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActSummary JudgmentNavigable WatersWorkmen's CompensationScope of ReviewAdministrative LawPier AccidentMaritime LawFederal Jurisdiction
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance v. McLellan

This motion, brought by a plaintiff insurance carrier and Flying Tigers, Inc., sought to stay payment to defendant John Johnstone. The payment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner McLellan under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for the death of James M. Johnstone. Plaintiffs argued that the Deputy Commissioner's findings on dependency and jurisdiction were erroneous and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to no provision for repayment under the Act. However, the court found the application inadequate, citing insufficient facts, rebutted dependency claims, and legally insufficient assertions of irreparable injury. Consequently, the motion for a stay of payment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationStay of PaymentPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDependencyJurisdictionCompensation AwardPenalty for Non-PaymentInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

O'Dette v. Parton

Plaintiff Theresa M. O’Dette, an Erie County Deputy Sheriff, was injured while on duty and received benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c. She sued her employer, Erie County, and a fellow deputy for negligence. Supreme Court denied the County's motion to dismiss, which argued the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law exclusivity. The appellate court reversed, concluding that the right to Workers’ Compensation benefits constitutes an exclusive remedy, even when GML § 207-c benefits are received in lieu thereof, due to an integrated legislative scheme. The plaintiff's action against the employer and fellow employee was dismissed, reinforcing the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityGeneral Municipal LawDeputy SheriffNegligence ActionInjury on DutyExclusive RemedyAppellate ReviewMunicipal Employer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationInter-Statutory Scheme
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 125 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