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

Anderson v. New York State Urban Development Corp.

This case involves a judicial review of a determination by the New York State Urban Development Corporation (doing business as Empire State Development Corporation) to condemn real property. The petitioners challenged the determination on two grounds: first, that the respondent failed to make a specific finding regarding a feasible method for relocating displaced families as required by the UDC Act § 10(g); and second, that the respondent did not adequately consider the socioeconomic impact of displacement under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA). The court found no merit in the petitioners' contentions, concluding that the respondent did make the necessary finding for relocation, which was supported by the final environmental impact statement (FEIS). The court also determined that the respondent properly considered the project's socioeconomic impact on the community as a whole, satisfying SEQRA requirements. Consequently, the court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Eminent DomainCondemnationEDPL 207SEQRARelocation PlanPublic UseEnvironmental ReviewUrban DevelopmentJudicial ReviewDisplaced Persons
References
5
Case No. 2018-01-0224
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2019

Yearby, Reginald v. Armstrong Relocation

This expedited hearing addressed whether the employee, Reginald Yearby, was entitled to temporary disability benefits at the maximum compensation rate of $992.20, and if the employer, Armstrong Relocation, was due a credit for overpayment. The Court found Mr. Yearby's actual taxable earnings were significantly less than initially stated, derived from his 2016 and 2017 tax returns, even though he was treated as an employee for workers' compensation purposes despite being an independent contractor. Citing Tennessee Code Annotated, the Court determined Mr. Yearby's correct average weekly wage was $552.50, leading to a compensation rate of $368.35. Consequently, his request for maximum benefits was denied, and Armstrong Relocation was granted a credit for past overpayments.

Temporary disability benefitsWorkers' CompensationAverage weekly wageOverpaymentExpedited hearingIndependent contractorEarningsBusiness expensesCompensation rateMedical treatment
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Chinese Staff & Workers Ass'n v. Bloomberg

This case involved a CPLR article 78 special proceeding initiated by various community organizations and residents against the New York City Department of City Planning (DCP). Petitioners sought to annul the Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) prepared for a significant rezoning of a 111-block area in Manhattan. They contended that the DCP failed to adequately assess the socioeconomic and cumulative impacts of the rezoning on low-income communities of color. The court, presided over by Walter B. Tolub, J., reviewed whether the agency had conducted a "hard look" and provided a "reasoned elaboration" for its determinations as required by SEQRA and CEQR. Finding no evidence that respondents failed in their obligations, the court denied the petition and dismissed the proceeding.

RezoningEnvironmental Impact StatementSocioeconomic ImpactDisplacementAffordable HousingUrban PlanningCommunity DevelopmentEnvironmental Review Act (SEQRA)City Environmental Quality Review (CEQR)Uniform Land Use Review Procedure (ULURP)
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 30, 2012

Hildebrandt v. Lee

The Family Court denied the mother's application to relocate to Texas with the minor child and granted the father's petition for modification of custody, awarding him sole custody with visitation to the mother. This decision was affirmed on appeal, citing a sound and substantial basis in the record for the court's determination that it was in the child's best interests. The court considered the mother's and her parents' exclusionary behavior and hostility toward the father, which made it unlikely the father-child relationship would be preserved if relocation occurred. The court also rejected the forensic expert’s opinion due to deficiencies, including the mother’s prior violations of court orders by temporarily leaving the jurisdiction and permanently moving without proper notification. The mother's allegations of sexual improprieties by the father were also found unsubstantiated.

Child CustodyRelocation RequestBest Interests of ChildParental HostilityForensic Expert OpinionVisitation RightsFamily Law AppealNew York CourtsCustody Modification
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Town of Dickinson v. County of Broome

This case involves cross-appeals from a Supreme Court judgment in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Petitioners challenged the Broome County Legislature's negative declaration of environmental impact for a proposed public safety facility, which included a 400-bed jail and other county offices in the Town of Dickinson, Broome County. The proposed complex was classified as a type I action under the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA), presumptively requiring an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The Supreme Court initially annulled the negative declaration but denied injunctive relief. This appellate court affirmed the annulment of the negative declaration and further directed respondents to investigate and discuss the storage of petroleum/chemical products and sewage treatment capacity within the required EIS, modifying the Supreme Court's judgment. The court also upheld the denial of petitioners' request for injunctive relief, noting that SEQRA mandates environmental review completion before any construction.

Environmental LawSEQRANegative DeclarationEnvironmental Impact StatementPublic Safety FacilityBroome CountyCPLR Article 78Cross AppealsAnnulmentInjunctive Relief
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Maynard v. Maynard

Petitioner sought joint legal and physical custody of her children after the respondent, her ex-husband, unilaterally moved with them to Virginia. The Family Court of Essex County initially dismissed the petitioner's application, awarding custody to the respondent. On appeal, the petitioner argued that the Family Court should have applied the legal standard for custody relocation cases. The Appellate Division agreed, noting that a custodial parent's move that deprives the noncustodial parent of customary contact is disfavored without exceptional circumstances. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the Family Court's order and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its decision.

Joint CustodyChild RelocationFamily LawCustody DisputeAppellate ReviewVisitation RightsBest Interests of the ChildDomestic Relations LawFamily Court ActEssex County
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Eisenberg v. Advance Relocation and Storage, Inc.

Plaintiff Julianne Eisenberg sued Advance Relocation and Storage, Inc. and related entities, alleging hostile work environment, sex discrimination, and retaliatory termination under Title VII and the New York State Human Rights Law. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Eisenberg was an independent contractor, not an employee. The court applied the common law agency test, weighing factors like tax treatment, skill required, and control. Ultimately, the court determined Eisenberg was an independent contractor, primarily due to her tax status and lack of employee benefits, and thus not protected by the relevant statutes. Defendants' motion for summary judgment was granted, dismissing all claims.

Employment StatusIndependent ContractorTitle VIICivil Rights Act of 1964New York State Human Rights LawSexual HarassmentDiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliatory TerminationSummary Judgment
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 1990

North Fork Environmental Council, Inc. v. Janoski

This case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the Town Board of Riverhead's determination to grant a special permit for a condominium development to Mill Pound Commons. The petitioner argued that the environmental impact statements were defective because the Town Board failed to consider the cumulative environmental effects of the project with other proposed projects in the Saw Mill Creek basin and did not consider archaeological impacts. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, affirmed the Town Board's decision, finding that the projects were not "reasonably related" for a mandatory cumulative impact review and that archaeological impacts were not raised or supported during the review process. The court emphasized that a Critical Environmental Area designation alone does not mandate a cohesive framework for cumulative impact review and that new issues cannot be raised after the completion of the Environmental Impact Statement process.

Environmental Impact StatementSEQRACumulative Impact ReviewSpecial PermitCondominium UseTown Board DeterminationCritical Environmental AreaArchaeological ResourcesPublic CommentCPLR Article 78
References
4
Case No. W2011-01649-COA-R3-JV
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 17, 2013

Rolando Toyos v. Amanda G. Hammock

This case involves a direct appeal from the Juvenile Court for Shelby County concerning child custody, relocation, and attorney fees. The primary residential parent, Mother Amanda G. Hammock, notified Father Rolando Toyos of her intent to relocate. Father opposed the relocation and petitioned to be named the child's primary residential parent. The trial court found a material change in circumstances but determined that the child's best interests were served by Mother remaining the primary residential parent and allowed her relocation. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part and reversed in part. It affirmed the trial court's decision on Mother remaining the primary residential parent, citing Father's anger, its effect on his support system, Mother's remarriage and relocation desire, and Father's unilateral decision-making. However, the appellate court vacated the relocation order and remanded the issue for an evidentiary hearing, finding Father was effectively denied an opportunity to present evidence on relocation. Additionally, the Court of Appeals vacated and reinstated certain financial and decision-making provisions of the 2007 Consent Order, contingent on the relocation outcome. It upheld the trial court's orders for Father to attend parenting training and to address his nanny's attitude towards the Mother, but it vacated the prohibition on overnight visitation by opposite-sex partners in Father's home due to insufficient evidentiary foundation. Finally, the appellate court upheld the award of attorney fees to Mother.

Child CustodyParental RelocationBest Interests of the ChildVisitation RightsChild SupportAttorney FeesModification of Court OrdersJudicial DiscretionAppellate ProcedureEvidentiary Hearing
References
46
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 1999

Dunbar Ex Rel. National Labor Relations Board v. Carrier Corp.

Sandra Dunbar, Regional Director of the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB), petitioned for a Section 10(j) injunction against Carrier to prevent the relocation of its TR-1 facility from Syracuse, New York, to Huntersville, North Carolina. The NLRB alleged that Carrier failed to bargain in good faith with Sheet Metal Workers International Association, Local No. 527 (union) over the relocation decision, insisting to impasse on a non-mandatory subject that would alter the bargaining unit's scope. The court found reasonable cause to believe Carrier committed unfair labor practices by failing to bargain in good faith regarding the mandatory subject of relocation. The injunction was granted in part, ordering Carrier to bargain in good faith with the union on the relocation decision and its effects, and enjoining further relocation actions without a good-faith impasse or agreement. A subsequent motion by Carrier for reconsideration, modification, and a limited stay pending appeal was denied.

Labor RelationsUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingSection 10(j) InjunctionRelocation of WorkBargaining ImpasseMandatory Bargaining SubjectPermissive Bargaining SubjectWaiver of RightsStatus Quo Ante
References
29
Showing 1-10 of 706 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