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

Reitman v. Sobol

The petitioner, a certified social worker, sought to restore his professional license after surrendering it in 1988 following a guilty plea to sodomy. His 1992 application for restoration was denied by the Board of Regents. Subsequently, the petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding in this Court to challenge the denial. The Court determined it lacked original jurisdiction to review the denial of a professional license restoration application, citing that such proceedings must be commenced in Supreme Court without specific statutory authority for direct appellate review. Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to a lack of subject matter jurisdiction.

Professional MisconductLicense RestorationCPLR Article 78Subject Matter JurisdictionAppellate ReviewBoard of RegentsSocial WorkerDenial of ApplicationNew York LawProfessional Licensing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Choi v. State

The petitioner, a physician, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the Commissioner of Education to suspend his medical license. The charges of professional misconduct stemmed from prior findings by the Department of Social Services (DSS) and the Department of Health (DOH) regarding unacceptable patient care, inappropriate treatment, excessive testing, and operating a clinical laboratory without a permit. The Regents Review Committee, utilizing an expedited procedure, found the petitioner guilty of two specifications based on the DSS determination and recommended a two-year license suspension, with a partial stay and probation. The court affirmed the Commissioner's determination and dismissed the petition, rejecting the petitioner's arguments against the application of collateral estoppel, the propriety of the expedited procedure, and the claim of ineffective assistance of counsel in the preceding administrative hearings. The court also upheld the penalty imposed, deeming it not excessive or an abuse of discretion.

Professional MisconductPhysician License SuspensionCPLR Article 78Collateral EstoppelExpedited ProcedureIneffective Assistance of CounselDepartment of Social ServicesDepartment of HealthAdministrative LawProfessional Regulation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2011

Gallo v. LiMandri

This case concerns the appeal of a decision to annul the revocation of a petitioner's hoist machine operator (HMO) license. The respondent Commissioner had revoked the license based on the petitioner's prior mail fraud conviction, stemming from an alleged scheme involving preferential union job assignments. The Supreme Court annulled the revocation and ordered a one-year suspension, a decision unanimously affirmed by the appellate court. The court found the Commissioner's revocation excessive given the specific circumstances of the petitioner's conviction, noting a lack of evidence for bribes or kickbacks and the questionable legal theory behind the mail fraud charge after the Skilling v United States decision. The court distinguished the petitioner's culpability from other cases involving more severe offenses like extortion.

License RevocationMail FraudHoist Machine OperatorMoral CharacterAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewUnion Job AssignmentsOrganized CrimeAdministrative DiscretionPenalty Excessive
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council v. Donovan

The petitioner, James T. Council, a substitute teacher, challenged his dismissal and the cancellation of his license after refusing to participate in mandatory shelter drills, citing conscientious objections to nuclear warfare. He argued his rights under Civil Service Law § 75 and the First and Fourteenth Amendments were violated, and that the drills were ineffective. The court dismissed his petition, ruling that as a substitute teacher in the unclassified service, he was not entitled to a formal hearing under Civil Service Law § 75. While acknowledging freedom of conscience, the court affirmed that conduct is subject to reasonable governmental regulation for public safety, upholding the acting Superintendent's decision to cancel his license due to insubordination. The court concluded that the penalty was not an abuse of discretion, as public employment is contingent on complying with lawful terms set by school authorities.

Substitute TeacherLicense CancellationCivil Service LawFreedom of ConscienceFirst AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentShelter DrillsInsubordinationAdministrative RemedyJudicial Review
References
27
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

Fortunato v. Workers' Compensation Board

The petitioner appealed two rulings: a Supreme Court judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 application to compel the Workers’ Compensation Board to renew his license, and a subsequent order denying reconsideration. The Board had denied license renewal due to petitioner's failure to provide records, reapply, and demonstrate competency. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, ruling that the proceeding was time-barred by the four-month Statute of Limitations. Additionally, the court found that mandamus was not appropriate for a discretionary act and that the Board’s determination was not arbitrary or capricious.

License RenewalMandamusCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation BoardStatute of LimitationsAdministrative LawJudicial ReviewArbitrary and CapriciousDiscretionary ActNonattorney Representative
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sundram v. City of Niagara Falls

The case involves a petitioner, an Indian national and permanent resident alien, whose application for a taxicab driver's license in Niagara Falls, New York, was denied due to a citizenship requirement in a city ordinance. The petitioner challenged this requirement, arguing it violated the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Citing precedents like Yick Wo v. Hopkins and Truax v. Raich, the court affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment extends protection to aliens regarding their right to earn a livelihood. The court found no compelling state interest to justify the citizenship classification for taxicab drivers, deeming the "undifferentiated fear" of criminal activity insufficient. Consequently, the court held subdivision (e) of section 16 of chapter 365 of the Niagara Falls ordinances unconstitutional, but withheld injunctive relief pending the full processing of the petitioner's application.

Citizenship RequirementEqual Protection ClauseFourteenth AmendmentAlien RightsTaxicab LicensingOrdinance ConstitutionalityOccupational LicensingDiscriminationRight to WorkNiagara Falls
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 03, 1967

Holloway v. Board of Examiners

The petitioner, a school social worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the respondent to provide copies of medical and other reports that led to an unsatisfactory rating in an examination for a Supervisor of School Social Workers license. The Supreme Court, Kings County, initially dismissed the petition. However, the appellate court reversed this judgment, granting the petition to the extent of directing the respondent to furnish the reports to a physician designated by the petitioner, rather than directly to the petitioner. The case was remanded to the Special Term for further proceedings, including a determination on allowing the petitioner more time to appeal the unsatisfactory rating.

Article 78 CPLRLicense ExaminationSchool Social WorkerMedical ReportsDisclosureAdministrative AppealUnsatisfactory RatingAppellate ReversalRemandPhysician Disclosure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1986

Willer v. New York State Board of Regents

This CPLR article 78 proceeding challenged the Commissioner of Education's revocation of the petitioner's medical license. The case focused on the proper application of collateral estoppel, deriving from a prior Workers' Compensation Board (WCB) determination. Following a remittal to allow the petitioner to demonstrate a lack of a full and fair opportunity to litigate before the WCB, the court found the petitioner failed to meet this burden. Consequently, the court affirmed the proper invocation of collateral estoppel by the State Board for Professional Medical Conduct and confirmed the Commissioner's determination, dismissing the petition.

Collateral EstoppelMedical License RevocationProfessional MisconductCPLR Article 78Administrative LawWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessJudicial ReviewState Board for Professional Medical ConductEducation Law
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 308 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