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 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Case No. 90 Civ. 6071
Regular Panel Decision

Local 365, Cemetery Workers & Green Attendance Workers Union v. Woodlawn Cemetery

Petitioner, Local 365, Cemetery Workers and Green Attendants Union, moved to confirm an arbitration award that reinstated employee John Grosso to his former position without back pay, following his discharge by Respondent, The Woodlawn Cemetery. Respondent cross-moved to vacate the reinstatement portion of the award. The dispute arose from Grosso's discharge for fighting, which was arbitrated under a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA). Prior NLRB proceedings had concluded that Grosso was discharged for fighting, not for union activities. The arbitrator found that while Grosso participated in a fight, he was not proven to be the aggressor and therefore not subject to immediate discharge under the CBA's 'assaulting another person' clause. The court, applying limited judicial review standards for arbitration awards, rejected Respondent's arguments of manifest disregard of the law and the arbitrator exceeding his authority. The court found no basis to vacate the award and consequently granted Petitioner's motion, denied Respondent's cross-motion, and confirmed the arbitration award.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementWrongful TerminationReinstatementLabor DisputeUnion Shop StewardJust Cause DischargeJudicial Review of ArbitrationManifest Disregard of LawCollateral Estoppel
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Benton

Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct after fighting with a co-worker during work hours. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence. The claimant's argument that he was not the aggressor was deemed a credibility issue for the Board to resolve. The court affirmed the Board's decisions, stating that fighting with a co-worker, regardless of who initiated it, may constitute disqualifying misconduct.

unemployment benefitsmisconductfightingco-workerappealsubstantial evidencecredibility issuedisqualification
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 1997

In re the Claim of Love

The claimant, a laborer for a plywood manufacturer, was terminated for fighting with a co-worker and subsequently disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding that fighting during working hours constitutes misconduct under the Labor Law, regardless of who initiated it. The claimant's defense of self-defense presented a credibility issue that the Board was entitled to resolve against him, thus supporting the disqualification.

MisconductUnemployment InsuranceFighting at WorkAppeal Board DecisionCredibility IssueSelf-defenseTermination of EmploymentLabor Law Violation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Abbondanzo

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a fight with a co-worker during business hours. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, noting that fighting with a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially given the claimant's prior admonishment for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace FightingDisqualificationEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrior Admonishment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States Casualty Company v. Henry

This compensation case involves a plaintiff, a carpenter for Harbison Norris, who was injured during a workplace altercation. The incident stemmed from a dispute over a nail bar and unpaid wages for the plaintiff's father. While attempting to deliver his father's check and intervene in a fight between his father and a foreman, the plaintiff was struck by another employee. A jury found the plaintiff's injury occurred within the course and scope of his employment, awarding $3315.87. The defendant appealed this verdict, but the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment, citing evidence that the injury arose from employment, was sustained while stopping a fight, or resulted from a prior work-related dispute.

Workplace FightCourse and ScopeEmployee InjuryEmployer LiabilityTexas AppealsJudgment AffirmedPersonal ReasonsWork-Related DisputeIntervening in FightCompensation Eligibility
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Conklin v. Saugerties Central School District

Plaintiff initiated a lawsuit against a school district for negligent supervision after his daughter, Cheyanne Conklin, was assaulted by a fellow student, Cassidy Edwards. The assault occurred despite plaintiff's prior warning to school administrators about a potential fight, prompted by comments discovered on MySpace. School staff intervened, meeting separately with both students and conducting a mediation where intentions to fight were denied. However, shortly after, Edwards attacked Conklin in a school hallway. The Supreme Court initially denied the school district's motion for summary judgment, but the appellate court reversed this decision. The appellate court concluded that the school district could not have reasonably foreseen the attack given the students' assurances and Edwards's disciplinary history, thereby granting summary judgment to the defendant and dismissing the complaint.

Negligent SupervisionSchool LiabilityStudent AssaultSummary JudgmentAppellate DecisionForeseeabilityDuty to SuperviseProximate CauseMySpace MonitoringSocial Worker Intervention
References
11
Case No. C10-324; 01A01-9604-CV-00183
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 1997

Hepp v. Joe B's & Schultz

This appeal concerns a customer, Dawne Hepp, who was injured in a fight at Joe B's, a sports bar. Hepp sued Joe B's for negligence, alleging that the bar failed to provide adequate protection, tolerated disorderly conditions, and did not stop the fight quickly enough. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Joe B's, stating there was no evidence that employees knew or should have known of the imminent danger. On appeal, the court affirmed the summary judgment. It discussed the evolution of premises liability regarding criminal acts of third parties, referencing Cornpropst v. Sloan and the expanded duty established in McClung v. Delta Square Ltd. Partnership. The appellate court found no evidence to substantiate Hepp's claims, concluding that Joe B's had taken adequate precautions based on its prior experience and that verdicts cannot be based on speculation.

negligencepremises liabilitysummary judgmentforeseeable harmcriminal actsduty of caresports barcustomer injuryalcohol related violenceappellate review
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scionti v. Board of Education

The plaintiff Thomas Scionti, a school teacher, was injured while intervening in a fight between students on school premises and during school hours. The Supreme Court properly determined that this action to recover damages for personal injuries was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. Furthermore, the Supreme Court properly dismissed all four of the causes of action asserted by the plaintiffs since they all related to the underlying injury.

School InjuryTeacher InjuryWorkers' Compensation BarPersonal Injury DismissalOn-Duty InjuryStudent AltercationSupreme Court RulingAction BarredEmployee Injury
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Timmons

The case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The claimant, a maintenance worker, was suspended and subsequently discharged after an arbitrator found he had forcibly taken paychecks from his supervisor and challenged him to a fight. The Board disqualified the claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, concluding his actions constituted misconduct. The court affirmed the Board's decision, stating it was bound by the arbitrator's factual findings and that the Board's conclusion had a rational basis.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductArbitrator FindingsDisqualificationAppeal BoardEmployee DisciplinePaychecksSupervisory ConflictRational BasisAppellate Review
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 40 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