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
Jun 17, 1977

Prate v. Freedman

This case involved white applicants who sued the City of Rochester, New York, alleging reverse discrimination in police officer hiring practices that favored minority applicants. The plaintiffs challenged a prior consent decree from Howard v. Freedman, which had established affirmative action measures. Chief Judge Curtin dismissed the consolidated actions, ruling it an impermissible collateral attack on the Howard decree due to the plaintiffs' failure to intervene timely. The court also held that the Constitution permits limited preferences for previously discriminated groups and dismissed pendent state law claims as superseded by federal law. Finally, the court awarded attorney fees to the defendant-intervenors, finding the plaintiffs' suit unreasonable and vexatious.

Reverse DiscriminationAffirmative ActionPolice RecruitmentEmployment LawCollateral Attack DoctrineConsent DecreeJudicial ReviewAttorney Fee AwardSubject Matter JurisdictionState Law Preemption
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bernhardt v. Interbank of New York

Donald Bernhardt, a former Chief Operating Officer, sued Interbank of New York and individual defendants, alleging he was terminated due to age and national origin discrimination, and in retaliation for his hiring practices. The plaintiff, 61 at the time of the alleged discriminatory practices and 54 at termination, claimed a preference for younger Greek men in hiring, contrasting with his own and other hires. The court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment on the discrimination and retaliation claims, finding genuine issues of material fact. However, it granted the individual defendants' motion to dismiss Title VII and ADEA claims against them, citing no individual liability under these statutes. Additionally, a motion to bifurcate the trial was denied.

Age DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeSummary JudgmentIndividual LiabilityTitle VIIADEAPrima Facie CasePretextEmployment Law
References
31
Case No. ADJ3533713
Regular
Nov 07, 2011

JUANA LOPEZ vs. THE MERCHANT OF TENNIS, HARTFORD INSURANCE

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) removed this matter for the purpose of imposing sanctions. The WCAB found that the petition for reconsideration filed by SIR Practice Solutions, LLC on behalf of several lien claimants was skeletal, unintelligible, and violated multiple WCAB rules regarding evidentiary and legal support. The lien claimants and SIR Practice Solutions, LLC failed to object to the Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions within the allotted time. Therefore, the WCAB imposed sanctions of $250.00 against each individual lien claimant and found SIR Practice Solutions, LLC jointly and severally liable for these sanctions.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardRemovalSanctionsLien ClaimantsSIR Practice SolutionsPetition for ReconsiderationSkeletal PetitionAppeals Board Rule 10846Labor Code Section 5813Notice of Intention to Impose Sanctions
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banks v. City of Albany

Sebastian Banks, a black male, alleged racial discrimination in hiring by the Albany Fire Department and City of Albany, violating Title VII, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments, and New York State Corrections Law Article 23-A. Banks, who scored 85 on a firefighter exam, was not hired while two white candidates with the same score were chosen based on subjective criteria and familial ties to Fire Chief James Larson. The court found Banks established a prima facie case of disparate impact discrimination, as the defendants failed to demonstrate business necessity for their subjective hiring practices. Consequently, the court denied both the defendants' motion for summary judgment and Banks' cross-motion for summary judgment, indicating that material facts remain in dispute and the case will proceed to trial.

DiscriminationRaceHiringFirefighterTitle VIIDisparate ImpactSummary JudgmentNew York Civil Service LawConstitutional LawEmployment Law
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hartman v. Bell

This case involves an appeal concerning a contract for the sale of a medical practice. A plaintiff physician agreed to sell his practice to defendant physicians, with payment contingent on a percentage of industrial medicine income over three years, including a minimum payment, and further payments for six months thereafter. The Supreme Court, Queens County, granted the defendants' cross motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint against them. The appellate court affirmed this decision, finding the agreement constituted an illegal fee-splitting arrangement under Education Law § 6509-a. The court emphasized that the law would not provide relief to parties involved in illegal arrangements, upholding public policy.

Fee-splittingMedical Practice SaleBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentUnjust EnrichmentPublic PolicyIllegal ContractProfessional Medical GroupAppellate DecisionContract Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. Cuevas

Petitioner filed an improper practice charge against the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) with the Public Employment Relations Board (PERB), alleging that Level I supervisors were performing work previously exclusive to Level II supervisors, specifically zone supervision, booth audits, and investigations. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) initially found a violation for zone supervision but not for the other tasks. PERB subsequently reversed the ALJ's decision regarding zone supervision, concluding that the petitioner failed to establish exclusivity. The petitioner then commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding to annul PERB's determination. The court, reviewing PERB's decision for substantial evidence, found that the petitioner did not meet its burden of demonstrating exclusivity for any of the disputed tasks due to significant overlap in supervisor duties. Consequently, PERB's determination dismissing the improper practice charge was confirmed.

improper practicepublic sector laborsupervisory rolesjob dutiesexclusivityCPLR article 78PERBNYCTACivil Service Lawzone supervision
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Reitman v. Mills

Petitioner's license to practice as a certified social worker was revoked in 1988 after pleading guilty to sodomy in the second degree. Following probation, he sought restoration of his license, citing rehabilitation efforts. Despite a peer subcommittee's recommendation for restoration, the Committee on the Professions and the Board of Regents recommended denial, a decision upheld by the Commissioner of Education. Petitioner's CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging this denial was dismissed by the Supreme Court. On appeal, the judgment was affirmed, with the court finding no abuse of discretion given the gravity of the offense, the petitioner's admitted ongoing struggles with sexual attraction to adolescent males, and concerns regarding public safety, especially as he intended to operate a private practice from his home.

License RestorationProfessional MisconductSodomyFelony ConvictionRehabilitationPublic SafetyJudicial ReviewAdministrative DiscretionSocial WorkerAppellate Affirmation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Taylor v. Board of Regents of University

Petitioner, a licensed optometrist in New York since 1981, faced eight specifications of professional misconduct between 1980 and 1985 while employed by American Vision Center. Charges included negligence, gross negligence, practicing beyond authorized scope by administering Neosporin, and unprofessional conduct for delegating responsibilities to unlicensed staff and failing to wear a name tag. A Hearing Panel found petitioner guilty, recommending a license suspension and fine. The Regents Review Committee modified these findings, and the respondent further narrowed the period of charges. Petitioner challenged the determination, alleging denial of due process due to lack of specificity and delay. The Court rejected the due process claims, finding charges specific and no actual prejudice from delay. While the Court found substantial evidence for negligence, unauthorized practice, and unprofessional conduct, it annulled the finding of gross negligence. Despite this annulment, the Court upheld the original penalty, modifying the determination only to reflect the removal of the gross negligence finding, and otherwise confirming the decision.

Optometry license suspensionProfessional misconductUnlicensed practiceDelegation of professional responsibilitiesGross negligenceDue processAdministrative reviewCPLR Article 78Education LawRegents Review Committee
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Richane v. Fairport Central School District

Plaintiff Robert Richane sued Fairport Central School District, alleging age discrimination in hiring under the ADEA and HRL after not being offered a teaching position. Fairport moved for summary judgment, arguing legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its hiring decision. The court, applying the McDonnell Douglas framework, found that while Richane established a prima facie case, he failed to demonstrate that Fairport's reasons (better-qualified candidates, poor interview performance) were a pretext for age discrimination. The court granted Fairport's motion for summary judgment and dismissed Richane's complaint with prejudice, also rejecting his unproven pattern and practice discrimination claim.

Age DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentPretextMcDonnell Douglas FrameworkHuman Rights LawADEAHiring PracticesTeacher EmploymentFederal Civil Procedure
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mighty Knitting Mills, Inc. v. Sinensky

Plaintiff, Mighty Knitting Mills, sought an injunction against defendant, Knitgoods Workers Union Local 155, to stop picketing its premises. Plaintiff argued the picketing was unlawful, aiming to breach its agreement with Local 138, and violated employee rights. Defendant contended its right to picket for organizational purposes and to protest plaintiff's unfair labor practice of entering into a contract with Local 138 before hiring production workers. The court found that plaintiff's contract with Local 138 likely constituted an unfair labor practice. Concluding that the dispute was a legitimate labor dispute and peaceful picketing is constitutionally protected, the court ruled that the plaintiff failed to prove the picketing was for an unlawful purpose and dismissed the complaint.

Labor DisputePicketing InjunctionUnfair Labor PracticeCollective Bargaining AgreementOrganizational PicketingFirst Amendment RightsFourteenth Amendment RightsLabor Law ViolationsCivil Practice Act DisputeUnion Recognition
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 1,109 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