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

Fourth Branch Associates v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioners Joseph Harris and Fourth Branch Associates initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC)'s issuance of a 'Notice of Complete Application and Determination of No Significance' and a '401 Water Quality Certificate' for a proposed hydroelectric project by ENERCO Corporation and Adirondack Hydro Development Corporation (AHDC). Petitioners contended that NYSDEC violated the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) by not requiring an environmental assessment form, an environmental impact statement, or public hearings. AHDC argued federal preemption by the Federal Power Act, limiting NYSDEC's review to water quality standards. NYSDEC also moved for remand, acknowledging a procedural error in not requiring an environmental assessment form but arguing against preemption. The court determined that the Federal Power Act preempts NYSDEC from conducting a full SEQRA environmental review, limiting its authority to assessing compliance with State water quality standards. Consequently, NYSDEC was found to lack authority to require SEQRA-mandated forms, statements, or hearings for the 401 water quality certification.

Environmental LawFederal PreemptionWater Quality CertificationHydroelectric ProjectsState Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA)Federal Power ActCPLR Article 78 ProceedingState AuthorityEnvironmental ReviewRegulatory Control
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Anderberg v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

The petitioners, residents along Clove Road, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) and Ulster County Department of Public Works (Ulster County). The proceeding challenged DEC's decision to issue a stream disturbance permit for the replacement of a bridge on Clove Road, arguing that the project required a full State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) review, including an environmental assessment form (EAF). DEC and Ulster County classified the project as a Type II action, asserting it was a "replacement in kind" and thus exempt from comprehensive SEQRA review. The court found that the respondents had adequately considered environmental factors and that their classification of the project was not arbitrary or capricious. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that no further SEQRA review was necessary. Additionally, the court denied the petitioners' motion for a default judgment against the Town of Gardiner concerning two other bridges, deeming the request premature.

Environmental LawSEQRA ComplianceBridge ConstructionAdministrative ReviewType II ActionStream Disturbance PermitPublic Works ProjectJudicial ScrutinyUlster CountyNew York State DEC
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

ELG Utica Alloys, Inc. v. Department of Environmental Conservation

Petitioner Universal Waste, Inc. initiated an Article 78 proceeding to challenge the Commissioner of Environmental Conservation's denial of its application to reclassify a 21-acre parcel in Utica, Oneida County, from a Class 2 to a Class 3 inactive hazardous waste disposal site, or to have it removed from the registry entirely. The site, contaminated with polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) from a former scrap metal operation, had been designated a Class 2 site by the Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC) since 1985 due to a significant environmental threat, triggering a complex legal and administrative history. Despite an Administrative Law Judge's recommendation for reclassification to Class 3 following a hearing, the Commissioner ultimately denied the request in October 2011, concluding that petitioner failed to demonstrate the site no longer posed a significant threat to the environment. The Commissioner's decision highlighted the presence of massive quantities of PCBs, the absence of effective cleanup measures, and evidence of contamination exceeding state standards both on-site and migrating to the adjacent Mohawk River and wetlands. The Appellate Division affirmed the Commissioner's determination, dismissing the petition and finding no jurisdictional overreach, no substantial prejudice from a five-year delay in the decision, and that the Commissioner's findings were supported by substantial evidence.

Environmental LawHazardous WastePCB ContaminationSite ReclassificationAdministrative LawArticle 78 ProceedingEnvironmental Conservation Law (ECL)Inactive Hazardous Waste Site RegistryAppellate DivisionJudicial Review
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vision Environmental Services Corp. v. New York City Department of Environmental Protection

The Appellate Division confirmed a determination by the Environmental Control Board, which found petitioners (an owner and a contractor) in violation of city asbestos regulations. The violations included failure to ensure workers wore protective gloves, maintain a proper ground-fault interrupter, provide adequate shower heads in the decontamination room, and ensure the shift supervisor wore proper protective clothing. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's determination, and affirmed that the owner was liable for the contractor's violations. The petition brought pursuant to CPLR article 78 was denied and dismissed.

Asbestos RegulationsEnvironmental ViolationsWorker SafetyProtective EquipmentOwner LiabilityContractor LiabilityAdministrative ReviewArticle 78 ProceedingSubstantial EvidenceNew York City
References
1
Case No. 034765412M
Regular Panel Decision

McAtee v. Environmental Control Board of the Department of Environmental Protection

The petitioner, Darin E McAtee, sought to annul a New York City Environmental Control Board (ECB) determination that found him in violation of Administrative Code § 28-404.1 and imposed a $4,800 fine. The violation stemmed from a window washing company hired by McAtee, whose worker lacked a rigger's license. McAtee argued that the Administrative Code section was vague as applied to nonsupervisory homeowners and that New York Labor Law preempted local laws regarding window washers. The court found that the ECB's interpretation of the statute had no rational basis, as the code's language did not apply to homeowners who neither hoisted nor supervised the work. Consequently, the court granted McAtee's petition, annulled the ECB's determination, and dismissed the notice of violation.

Workers' CompensationAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewStatutory InterpretationHomeowner LiabilityBuilding CodesRigger LicenseDue ProcessPreemptionNew York City
References
12
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05778 [152 AD3d 1016]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 30, 2017

Riverkeeper, Inc. v. New York State Department of Environmental Conservation

This case involves an appeal by Riverkeeper, Inc. challenging the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation's (DEC) decision to grant SPDES and Title V permits to Danskammer Energy, LLC for a natural gas electric generating station. Riverkeeper sought annulment of the permits and a negative declaration under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), arguing for a public adjudicatory hearing and a new source review. The Supreme Court dismissed the applications, and the Appellate Division affirmed this judgment. The appellate court found DEC's determinations regarding the lack of need for a public hearing, compliance with thermal discharge regulations through a 'mixing zone' policy, and the non-permanent nature of the station's shutdown for new source review purposes to be rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

Environmental LawPermit RenewalSPDES PermitTitle V PermitState Environmental Quality Review ActPublic HearingNew Source ReviewWater Quality StandardsThermal DischargeClean Air Act
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Consolidated Flooring Corp. v. Environmental Control Board

The case involves a petitioner contractor found to have violated asbestos control program regulations by the Environmental Control Board. The violation stemmed from disturbing asbestos without proper containment and protection measures. The court reviewed the determination, confirming the Board's findings. Consequently, the petitioner's request was denied, and the related CPLR article 78 proceeding was dismissed. The court emphasized that asbestos abatement regulations apply even when the presence of asbestos is not initially suspected.

asbestos controlenvironmental regulation violationcontractor liabilitypublic health and safetyworker protectionadministrative determination reviewjudicial review of agency actionArticle 78 proceedingregulatory complianceasbestos abatement activities
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Farren v. Shaw Environmental, Inc.

Plaintiff Ann Farren, administratrix of Kenneth Farren's estate, sued Defendant Shaw Environmental, Inc. for Title VII and New York State Human Rights Law violations, alleging gender discrimination and retaliation. Kenneth Farren, a laborer's foreman, reported sexual harassment by a coworker, Albert Puma, including sexually explicit and threatening remarks. Defendant disciplined Puma with a one-week suspension, but Farren eventually left the job due to alleged escalating harassment and was later terminated during a workforce reduction. The court granted Defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding no evidence of gender-related harassment or disparate treatment, and no triable issue of fact regarding retaliation or constructive discharge. The court concluded that Puma's comments were expressions of animosity rather than sexual desire and that Farren's absenteeism was a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for termination.

Gender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawConstructive DischargeExhaustion of Administrative RemediesDisparate Treatment
References
36
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 1987

Ebbecke v. Bay View Environmental Services, Inc.

Charles Ebbecke suffered severe injuries from a chemical splash while waste was being loaded into a tanker. He initiated a personal injury lawsuit against Bay View Environmental Services, Inc., the company responsible for loading. Bay View subsequently impleaded Grumman Aerospace Corp., Ebbecke's employer, seeking contractual indemnification. Grumman, in turn, claimed indemnification from Bay View under a purchase order contract. The Supreme Court dismissed Grumman's indemnification claim. On appeal, the court affirmed the judgment, ruling that the contractual clause did not explicitly demonstrate an "unmistakable intent" for Bay View to indemnify Grumman for Grumman's own negligence, especially considering ambiguities are resolved against the drafter, Grumman.

Contractual IndemnificationPersonal InjuryThird-Party ClaimNegligenceContract InterpretationTypewritten vs. Printed ProvisionsRisk AllocationUnmistakable IntentAmbiguity in ContractAppellate Review
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liverpool v. S.P.M. Environmental Inc.

Plaintiff sought summary judgment on liability under Labor Law § 240 (1) after the decedent, Keith Liverpool, died from a 15-foot fall at a construction site caused by unsecured bar joists. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, denied the motion. The appellate court unanimously reversed, granting summary judgment on liability against defendants S.P.M. Environmental Inc., the general contractor, and Provech Realty Co., the owner. The court emphasized the absolute liability under Labor Law § 240 (1), ruling that arguments of comparative negligence or the decedent's employment status as an independent contractor were irrelevant to the defendants' statutory duty to provide proper safety devices.

Construction AccidentLabor Law § 240(1)Summary JudgmentAbsolute LiabilityFall ProtectionGeneral Contractor LiabilityProperty Owner LiabilityWorker SafetyAppellate ReversalComparative Negligence Irrelevant
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 925 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