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. No. 92 CV 1258
Regular Panel Decision

Haitian Centers Council, Inc. v. McNary

The plaintiffs, Haitian Service Organizations and Haitian individuals, commenced a class action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against the Government following the 1991 Haitian military coup. They alleged violations of First and Fifth Amendment rights, statutory rights to counsel, failure to adhere to Administrative Procedure Act (APA) rulemaking procedures, arbitrary and capricious agency action, breach of the non-refoulement duty, and equal protection violations due to a separate asylum track for Haitians. The Government moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted the Government's motion in part, dismissing claims related to the extraterritorial application of the statutory right to counsel and the failure to follow APA rulemaking procedures, but denied the motion for all other claims, including those based on the First Amendment, Fifth Amendment, arbitrary and capricious action, non-refoulement, and equal protection.

Asylum LawRefugee ActImmigration and Nationality ActFirst AmendmentFifth AmendmentDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative Procedure ActClass ActionDeclaratory Relief
References
16
Case No. ADJ7469490
Regular
Jul 22, 2015

JOSEPH GUIDO vs. NATIONAL AIR, INC., INSURANCE COMPANY OF THE WEST

This case involves a law firm's petition for reconsideration of a workers' compensation award regarding attorney fees. The Appeals Board dismissed the petition because it was untimely and unverified, violating jurisdictional deadlines and procedural rules. Even if considered timely and properly filed, the Board would have denied reconsideration based on the WCJ's reasoning. The Board also admonished the firm for procedural missteps and attached materials, reminding them of potential sanctions for rule violations.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationFindings and AwardAttorney FeesCompromise and ReleaseUntimely PetitionUnverified PetitionJurisdictional Time LimitLabor CodeWCAB Rules
References
6
Case No. 01-7924
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2003

Colondres v. Scoppetta

Plaintiff, Colondres, sued officials of the Administration for Children's Services and the City of New York for constitutional violations after her children were removed and she was maliciously prosecuted. She secured a $90,001.00 judgment via a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 68 offer. Subsequently, the City asserted a lien on her recovery for public assistance received, citing New York Social Services Law § 104-b. Colondres challenged the lien, arguing pre-emption by 42 U.S.C. § 1983, violation of First Amendment access to courts, lack of due process, and conflict with Rule 68. The court denied her motion, affirming the City's right to impose the lien and finding no constitutional or procedural infringements.

Constitutional LawCivil RightsPublic Assistance LienRule 68 OfferPreemption DoctrineFirst AmendmentDue ProcessSocial Services LawFederal Civil ProcedureJudicial Jurisdiction
References
39
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Linda FF.

This case involves an appeal from Family Court orders regarding a respondent's violation of supervision orders concerning her two children, Linda FF. and Charles FF. The respondent had previously consented to neglect findings for both children, who were placed in petitioner's custody, and was placed under supervision with conditions including family counseling, parenting education, and anger management. Petitioner initiated violation proceedings alleging the respondent failed to comply with these terms by missing classes and exhibiting a negative attitude, and Family Court found a willful violation, revoking the supervision orders and imposing a suspended 45-day jail term. On appeal, the respondent argued that Family Ct Act § 1072, used for enforcement, only applies to supervision orders issued under § 1054, not her orders which were likely under § 1057, but the appellate court interpreted this as legislative oversight and allowed enforcement under § 1072. The court affirmed the Family Court's determination, finding ample evidence of willful and unjustifiable violation of the supervision order terms.

Family LawChild NeglectSupervision OrderViolation ProceedingFamily Court Act § 1072Legislative OversightParenting ClassesAnger ManagementCustodyWillful Violation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morris v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

Thomas F. Morris, a former New York City Department of Transportation employee, applied for accidental disability benefits from NYCERS, which were denied on February 19, 1999. He subsequently signed a Final Medical Review Waiver, undergoing a Special Medical Review Committee's assessment, which again denied his benefits. Morris filed an action against NYCERS under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging due process violations because NYCERS failed to inform him of his right to judicial review under CPLR Article 78 as an alternative to the Special Medical Review, and that the Committee's procedures were flawed. The court ruled that NYCERS failed to provide sufficient notice for a knowing waiver of his Article 78 rights. However, the court found no due process violation in the Special Medical Review Committee’s procedures themselves.

Due ProcessWaiver of RightsJudicial ReviewAdministrative DecisionDisability BenefitsNYCERSArticle 78 ProceedingSummary JudgmentProperty InterestNotice Requirements
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Saks v. Franklin Covey Co.

Rochelle Saks, an employee of Franklin Covey, sued her employer and its health benefits plan administrator for denying coverage for surgical impregnation procedures for her infertility treatment. Saks claimed the denial violated the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Pregnancy Discrimination Act (PDA), and the New York Human Rights Law, also alleging breach of contract. The court, presided over by District Judge McMahon, granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment and dismissed Saks' complaint. The court found that Franklin Covey's insurance plan, which applied equally to all employees and excluded specific procedures including surgical impregnation, did not violate the ADA or Title VII. Furthermore, while infertility could be considered a pregnancy-related condition under the PDA, the plan's uniform exclusions still did not constitute discrimination. Finally, Saks' state law claims were preempted by ERISA.

Infertility TreatmentHealth Benefits PlanEmployment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationPregnancy DiscriminationERISA PreemptionSummary JudgmentSelf-funded InsuranceSurgical Procedures ExclusionMedical Necessity Definition
References
24
Case No. 73 Civ. 3058
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

This opinion and order addresses a long-standing civil rights action concerning alleged discrimination against minorities in the newspaper delivery industry by the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union (NMDU) and various publishers. The court reviews and affirms a determination by Administrator William S. Ellis regarding “Claim 186,” which involved violations of a 1974 Consent Decree, specifically concerning hiring procedures for Group III shapers at The New York Times. The Administrator found that the Times and NMDU violated the Settlement Agreement by unilaterally deviating from a 3/2 minority hiring ratio, implementing discriminatory application procedures, and engaging in intentional racial discrimination in offlist hiring and Group III list placement. The court also affirms the Administrator's conclusions that certain non-minority intervenors lacked standing and that back pay and attorneys' fees are appropriate remedies under the Settlement Agreement, which is deemed compliant with Title VII. The case is remanded to the Administrator for further evidentiary hearings to determine specific back pay amounts and the relative liability of The Times and the NMDU.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionConsent DecreeTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationHiring PracticesUnion PracticesAdministrator ReviewBack PayAttorneys' Fees
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Yonkers Electric Contracting Corp. v. Local Union No. 3, International Brotherhood Electrical Workers'

This case involves a dispute between Yonkers Electric Contracting Corporation and Local Union No. 3 International Brotherhood Electrical Workers’ AFL-CIO regarding a Project Labor Agreement (PLA) and its arbitration clause. The Union filed a grievance alleging violations of hiring provisions, but failed to adhere to the PLA's multi-step grievance procedure. A New York Supreme Court judge had previously stayed arbitration due to the Union's procedural non-compliance. Subsequently, the Union initiated a new grievance concerning the same alleged violations and sought to compel arbitration in federal court after removing the case from state court. The federal court, presided over by Judge McMahon, determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, as the federal action effectively sought to review or overturn the prior state court decision. The court found the new grievance concerned issues "inextricably intertwined" with the prior state court ruling. Consequently, the federal court granted Yonkers Electric's motion to remand the case back to the New York Supreme Court.

Rooker-Feldman doctrineSubject Matter JurisdictionRemandArbitration AgreementProject Labor AgreementGrievance ProcedureFederalismState Court Judgment ReviewLabor Management Relations ActCollateral Attack
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2003

Brancato v. City of New York

Plaintiff Vincent Brancato sued the City of New York and several of its departments and officials under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988, alleging violations of his Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Brancato claimed that the City failed to provide adequate notice and opportunity to be heard before placing a lien on his Staten Island property for health code violations and associated cleanup costs. The court found that the initial notice of violation was sufficient for both the original and subsequent similar violations, citing the City's strong public health interest in summarily abating nuisances. Furthermore, the court noted that Brancato had post-deprivation remedies available through an Article 78 Proceeding. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim, concluding that the City's procedures for addressing health code violations provided constitutionally sufficient due process.

Due ProcessFourteenth Amendment42 U.S.C. Section 1983Property LienHealth Code ViolationPublic Nuisance AbatementCity of New YorkNotice RequirementPre-deprivation HearingPost-deprivation Remedy
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Haddad v. City of Albany

The petitioner appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed their application, which combined a CPLR article 78 proceeding and an action for declaratory judgment. The application challenged the respondent's denial of a request to rescind waste removal violation bills issued by the Department of General Services (DGS) of the City of Albany. The Supreme Court had found that the petitioner failed to exhaust administrative remedies and that claims regarding preemption of local waste ordinances by state penal law were without merit. During the pendency of the appeal, the Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) administratively reviewed the violations, reversing some charges and upholding others. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, concluding that a violation of the City of Albany's waste code was not a criminal violation under Penal Law § 55.10, and that the petitioner was indeed required to exhaust administrative remedies for their constitutional claims, as these claims implicated specific aspects of the administrative proceeding rather than the administrative scheme itself.

WasteManagementAdministrativeLawMunicipalCodePenalLawExhaustionOfRemediesDeclaratoryJudgmentAppellateReviewEnvironmentalViolationsPublicHealthPropertyMaintenance
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 7,340 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