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

Matter of Kent v. Cuomo

Petitioners, state employees typically ineligible for overtime, challenged a determination by the State Budget Director regarding overtime compensation following Hurricane Sandy. The Budget Director's bulletin authorized overtime for hours worked beyond 47.5 per week, rather than the 40-hour threshold sought by petitioners. Petitioners argued that the Budget Director was statutorily required to compensate for all hours over 40. The Supreme Court partially dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The appellate court deferred to the Budget Director's interpretation of Civil Service Law § 134 (6), finding the 47.5-hour threshold was not irrational or unreasonable given the agency's expertise and consistent past application. The court also held that employer respondents did not act irrationally in not requesting compensation below the 47.5-hour threshold, as this authority rests solely with the Budget Director.

Overtime CompensationExtreme EmergencyHurricane SandyState EmployeesCivil Service LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionNormal Workweek47.5-Hour ThresholdCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1998

Ballard v. Community Home Care Referral Service, Inc.

The plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, concerning unpaid overtime wages and class action certification. The court affirmed the order, concluding that the plaintiff, a home health care aide, was not entitled to 1.5 times her regular hourly wage for overtime. This decision was based on the Fair Labor Standards Act's (FLSA) companion services exemption, which defines overtime compensation for such roles. Furthermore, the presence of a liquidated damages claim precluded class action relief under CPLR 901 (b).

Overtime WagesHome Health Care AideFLSA ExemptionClass ActionAffirmative DefensesNew York Labor LawWage OrderUnpaid WagesCPLR 90129 USC 207
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cianciulli v. Perales

This case concerns a petitioner's challenge under CPLR article 78 against determinations by the New York State Commissioner of Social Services. The Commissioner affirmed a local agency's decision to discontinue the petitioner's Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) grant due to receiving a lump-sum income exceeding household needs. The Commissioner also affirmed that a $2,600 loan repayment was not a life-threatening circumstance, thus not deductible from the lump-sum income for AFDC reapplication. The court confirmed both determinations, finding the petitioner's arguments lacked merit. It rejected claims that regulation 18 NYCRR 352.29 [h] violates constitutional duties or statutory mandates, or creates an invalid conclusive presumption of income availability. The court upheld the Commissioner's interpretation that life-threatening situations occur after lump-sum receipt, not for prior debts, even if those debts were for life-threatening circumstances at the time they were incurred.

AFDCLump-sum incomePublic assistanceSocial Services LawLife-threatening circumstanceLoan repaymentAdministrative reviewConstitutional lawStatutory interpretationEligibility criteria
References
7
Case No. Dkt. # 6, Dkt. # 7
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2013

Crayton v. Astrue

Plaintiff appeals the denial of supplemental security income benefits by the Commissioner of Social Security. Plaintiff filed an application for Supplemental Security Income benefits in 2009, alleging inability to work due to various medical conditions. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied the application, and the Appeals Council denied review, making the ALJ's decision final. The District Court reviews the Commissioner's decision, finding that while the ALJ's assessment of exertional limitations was supported by substantial evidence, the ALJ failed to apply the Psychiatric Review Technique (PRT) in analyzing non-exertional limitations. Consequently, the court remands the matter for further proceedings consistent with its opinion, specifically for proper application of the PRT.

Supplemental Security IncomeSocial Security ActDisability BenefitsAdministrative Law JudgePsychiatric Review TechniqueRFCExertional LimitationsNon-exertional LimitationsDepressionAnxiety
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Psaty & Fuhrman, Inc. v. New York State Tax Commission

Petitioner, a general contracting firm involved in the construction of the Nelson A. Rockefeller Empire State Plaza, faced a personal income tax assessment for additional payments made to 16 employees. These payments, characterized as per diem living and travel allowances, did not have New York State income taxes withheld. The State Tax Commission, after an audit and hearing, ruled these were supplemental wages subject to withholding tax, not reimbursements. Petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, bearing the burden of proof, to challenge this determination. The court, noting the payments lacked a fixed formula and some recipients lived locally, found the respondent acted reasonably. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Personal Income TaxWithholding TaxSupplemental WagesPer Diem PaymentsTravel AllowanceLodging AllowanceCPLR Article 78Burden of ProofTax DeficiencyState Tax Commission
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 2015

Vera v. Low Income Marketing Corp.

The court modified an order regarding a Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, partially granting the plaintiff's motion against defendant Low Income Marketing Corp. (LIMC) and denying LIMC's motion to dismiss. It affirmed the lower court's decision that a Workers' Compensation Board finding of no employment relationship was not preclusive due to different statutory definitions of 'employment.' The court found that plaintiff Claudio Vera was 'employed' under the Labor Law, entitling him to partial summary judgment against LIMC, the owner. Additionally, the court granted summary judgment to defendant Skyline Scaffolding Group, Inc., dismissing common-law negligence and cross claims against it, as there was no evidence it created the scaffold defect. The final decision modified the order to grant Skyline's motion and otherwise affirmed it.

Labor LawScaffold AccidentSummary JudgmentCollateral EstoppelWorkers' CompensationEmployment DefinitionIndependent ContractorOwner LiabilityGeneral ContractorNegligence
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lopez v. Overtime 1st Avenue Corp.

This opinion addresses the parties' joint motions for entry of judgment under Rule 68 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or, alternatively, for leave to file an interlocutory appeal. Plaintiff Joysel Lopez initiated the suit in 2015, alleging overtime and minimum wage violations under the FLSA and NYLL, which later became a collective action joined by three other plaintiffs. The parties reached a settlement in 2016, but the Court declined to approve it due to concerns about the disproportionate distribution of funds to Lopez and the non-appearance of other plaintiffs. Subsequently, plaintiffs accepted Rule 68 offers of judgment, prompting the Court to examine whether judicial approval is required for such FLSA settlements, concluding that it is. The Court denies both motions, citing the need for judicial review of FLSA settlements, even under Rule 68, to protect plaintiffs from abusive deals and to uphold the FLSA's remedial goals. The Court also denies the request for interlocutory appeal to avoid further delaying the case and risking defendant's ability to pay.

Wage-and-hour disputeFLSANYLLRule 68 offer of judgmentInterlocutory appealJudicial approval of settlementCollective actionSettlement fairnessDistrict CourtSecond Circuit
References
25
Case No. 286/10
Regular Panel Decision

Jackson v. Bank of America, N.A.

Plaintiffs Delores Jackson, Shawn Jackson, and Odamis Villa initiated a lawsuit against Defendant Bank of America, alleging that the bank unlawfully froze their accounts in violation of the Exempt Income Protection Act (EIPA), CPLR 5222-a. The plaintiffs contended that the bank failed to provide required exemption notices and claim forms, improperly aggregated funds from multiple accounts, and closed accounts without due process, thereby denying them access to statutorily exempt funds. Bank of America filed a motion to dismiss, arguing that the EIPA does not confer a private right of action for debtors against banks and that its actions were supported by documentary evidence. The court reviewed the defendant's evidence, which was found to support the plaintiffs' allegations, and concluded that an implied private right of action exists under the EIPA, aligning with its legislative intent to protect vulnerable account holders. Consequently, the court denied Bank of America's motion to dismiss in its entirety, allowing the plaintiffs to proceed with their claims and also ruling against the bank's preemption argument.

Exempt Income Protection ActCPLR 5222-aPrivate Right of ActionImplied Right of ActionBank Account RestraintJudgment Debtor RightsConsumer ProtectionMotion to DismissPreemptionBanking Law
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gill v. Bausch & Lomb Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I

Daniel E. Gill, Thomas C. McDermott, and Jay T. Holmes, retired Bausch & Lomb (B & L) executives and participants in the B & L Supplemental Retirement Income Plan I (SERP I), challenged the termination of their monthly benefits and conversion to lump sums following a change of control at B & L. The court found that B & L Human Resources personnel acted as unauthorized fiduciaries in 2007 by interpreting the plan and terminating benefits. The subsequent 2008 decision by the Compensation Committee was also found flawed due to structural conflicts of interest, procedural violations, and abdication of fiduciary responsibility. The court granted Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, concluding that the termination of benefits and lump-sum payments violated ERISA and vacated both decisions.

ERISA LitigationEmployee Retirement Income Security ActFiduciary DutySummary JudgmentConflict of InterestPlan AdministrationBenefit DenialChange of ControlLump Sum PaymentsProcedural Violations
References
57
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 08, 1993

Kelly v. Bane

This case involves an appeal concerning an amendment to the 'Emergency Home Relief' (EHR) program regulation, 18 NYCRR 370.3 (b) (2), which set an income eligibility cap at 125% of the Federal poverty guidelines. Plaintiffs, low-income families and individuals facing eviction, challenged the amendment's validity and the denial of their applications. While the Supreme Court declared the amendment invalid, the Appellate Division modified this, ruling that the amendment itself was not irrational. However, the Appellate Division found the New York State Department of Social Services' (DSS) interpretation and application of the income test—using prospective income rather than income at the time of the emergency—to be arbitrary and capricious. The court affirmed the remand of the cases, directing re-evaluation of eligibility based on a reasonable computation of income during the emergency period.

Emergency Home ReliefAdministrative LawRegulatory InterpretationPoverty GuidelinesEviction PreventionHomelessnessIncome EligibilityArbitrary and CapriciousDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 701 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