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. 2018 NY Slip Op 08980
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 27, 2018

Matter of Ricci v. Maria Regina Residence

This case involves an appeal by the Special Disability Fund from a Workers' Compensation Board decision. The Board had ruled that the workers' compensation carrier for Maria Regina Residence was entitled to reimbursement from the Special Disability Fund for a claim related to Cyndia Ricci's work-related knee injury, asserting Ricci had pre-existing heart and arthritis conditions. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the Board's finding that Ricci's preexisting conditions hindered her employment potential. The court concluded that the medical opinion relied upon was based on generalities and speculation, and that conditions controlled by medication do not, without more, constitute a hindrance to employability. Consequently, the Board's decision was reversed, and the matter was remitted for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Disability FundReimbursement ClaimPreexisting ImpairmentEmployabilityMaterially and Substantially Greater DisabilityMedical OpinionOrthopedic SurgeonAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Informal Opinion No.

The opinion addresses whether Rockland County can mandate that 50% of public works project hires be county residents. It analyzes various constitutional clauses, finding the Commerce Clause not an impediment due to the 'market participant' doctrine and congressional authorization for federal funds. It distinguishes a local law from a state law concerning the Privileges and Immunities Clause, suggesting a local law targeting non-county residents (including other state residents) might be valid. The opinion also examines the Equal Protection Clause and bona fide residency requirements, concluding they generally pass the rational basis test. However, it cautions that such a local law must not violate General Municipal Law § 103 competitive bidding requirements, which would be a factual determination on a case-by-case basis.

Public Works ProjectsResident Hiring RequirementsLocal Law AuthorizationCommerce ClausePrivileges and Immunities ClauseEqual Protection ClauseCompetitive BiddingGeneral Municipal LawHome Rule LawMarket Participant Doctrine
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ziehm v. City of Buffalo

Linda Ziehm, an absentee investigator for the City of Buffalo, was terminated in 1979 for violating a residency ordinance, despite claiming exemption under a collective bargaining agreement based on her residency status before January 1, 1977. Although a hearing officer recommended her reinstatement, the commissioner rejected this, finding she was a city resident until June 1979. The Supreme Court annulled the commissioner's determination, ordering Ziehm's reinstatement with back pay. However, the appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, dismissed Ziehm's petition, and confirmed the commissioner's initial determination. The appellate decision concluded that substantial evidence in the record supported the commissioner's finding that Ziehm did not qualify for the residency exemption.

Residency ordinanceEmployment terminationCollective bargaining agreementDomicileAdministrative determinationSubstantial evidenceCPLR Article 78Appellate reviewCity employeesExemptions
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Katz Park Avenue Corp. v. Jagger

Judge Ciparick issues a concurring opinion in an ejectment action, agreeing with the outcome of summary judgment against a tenant but dissenting from the majority's legal interpretation regarding the compatibility of B-1/B-2 visas and primary residency under New York's rent stabilization laws. Ciparick argues that while visa status can be a factor, it should not automatically disqualify a tenant from primary residency. The judge found that summary judgment was appropriately granted due to the tenant's unrebutted sporadic occupancy, lack of evidence of New York residency, and admissions of non-occupancy, establishing a prima facie case of non-primary residence, aligning with the rent stabilization law's goal of returning underutilized apartments to the market.

Rent StabilizationPrimary ResidenceB-2 VisaEjectment ActionSummary JudgmentNew York Rent LawImmigration StatusTenant OccupancyHousing LawConcurring Opinion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Szucs v. Committee of Interns and Residents

Paul Szucs, a physician at Bronx Municipal Hospital Center (BMHC), sued the Committee of Interns and Residents (CIR), a labor union, under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging a conspiracy with BMHC to deny his collective bargaining rights and force his resignation. He also brought several state law claims. Szucs claimed CIR representatives conspired with BMHC to frustrate his grievance and arbitration attempts after he was fired from his residency program for alleged attendance issues. The court granted CIR's motion for summary judgment on the § 1983 claim, finding no evidence of a conspiracy between CIR and BMHC, and no evidence that CIR acted under color of state law or had a policy to conspire. The court dismissed the federal claim and remanded the remaining New York State common law claims for breach of contract, breach of duty of fair representation, gross negligence, breach of fiduciary duty, and concerted action to state court. The court reserved decision on motions for attorneys' fees and costs, referring them to a Magistrate Judge.

Civil RightsSection 1983Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementDue ProcessConspiracySummary JudgmentState Law ClaimsRemandAttorneys' Fees
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 05, 1973

In re Jones

This case concerns the foster care status of Marie Jones, born November 17, 1965, who was placed in foster care with the Commissioner of Social Services in 1968 and subsequently surrendered for adoption by her natural parents in 1969. Marie has lived continuously with her foster parents, Mabel and William Oliver, since 1968 and has developed deep emotional ties with their family. A hearing was held pursuant to Social Services Law section 392 to review her foster care status and determine her best interests. The maternal grandparents, who had regular visitation, initially sought increased visitation but later requested custody and opposed the adoption by the foster parents. The court, considering all testimony and circumstances, found it was in Marie's best interest to remain with her foster parents and ordered her placed for adoption in their home, while also allowing continued grandparent visitation.

Foster CareAdoptionChild CustodySocial Services LawBest Interest of the ChildGrandparents' RightsParental RightsDe Facto ParentFamily LawSurrender Instrument
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Committee of Interns & Residents v. New York State Labor Relations Board

The Committee of Interns and Residents (petitioner) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to compel the New York State Labor Relations Board (respondent) to assert jurisdiction over unfair labor practice complaints against several intervening nonprofit hospitals. The State Board had previously dismissed the petitions, expressing uncertainty about its jurisdiction following 1974 amendments to the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA) which brought nonprofit hospitals under federal purview. However, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) subsequently determined that interns, residents, and clinical fellows, represented by the petitioner, are 'students' and not 'employees' under the NLRA, thereby declining federal jurisdiction over them. This court concluded that the NLRB's decision to not assert jurisdiction over these personnel meant that the NLRA did not preempt the State Board's historical jurisdiction in such matters. Consequently, the court granted the petition, vacated the State Board's dismissals, and remanded the cases for further consideration consistent with this opinion.

Labor LawNational Labor Relations ActFederal PreemptionState Labor Relations BoardNLRB JurisdictionInterns and ResidentsCollective BargainingNonprofit HospitalsEmployee StatusStudent Status
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Lyondell Chemical Co.

Mrs. Regina Jahnke sought administrative expense status under Bankruptcy Code Section 1114 for payments due under a prepetition private annuity contract from Lyondell Chemical Company, the successor to her late husband's employer, ARCO Chemical Company. Lyondell contended that the contract was not covered by Section 1114, arguing that the payments were general unsecured claims. The Court, presided over by Bankruptcy Judge Robert E. Gerber, agreed with Lyondell. The Court found that the contract did not qualify as a "plan, fund, or program" under ERISA standards, and furthermore, the benefits were not "retiree benefits" as defined in Section 1114(a). Therefore, Mrs. Jahnke's motion for administrative status was denied, and her claim remained a general unsecured claim.

BankruptcyAdministrative Expense StatusRetiree BenefitsAnnuity ContractEmployee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA)Chapter 11Unsecured ClaimsContract LawCorporate SuccessionJudicial Interpretation
References
17
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04184 [150 AD3d 1589]
Regular Panel Decision
May 25, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Program Risk Management, Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator and successor to the Community Residence Insurance Savings Plan, initiated legal action against various entities and individuals after the trust became severely underfunded. Defendants include Program Risk Management, Inc. (administrator), PRM Claims Services, Inc. (claims administrator), individual officers of PRM, the Board of Trustees, and Thomas Gosdeck (trust counsel). The plaintiff sought damages for claims such as breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, and legal malpractice. The Supreme Court's order partially dismissed some claims and denied others. On cross-appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, modified the Supreme Court's order, notably reversing the dismissal of several breach of fiduciary duty claims and common-law indemnification against PRMCS, while affirming denials of motions to dismiss breach of contract, legal malpractice, and unjust enrichment claims. The court's decision was influenced by recent rulings in State of N.Y. Workers' Compensation Bd. v Wang.

Workers' Compensation LawGroup Self-Insured TrustBreach of ContractBreach of Fiduciary DutyLegal MalpracticeUnjust EnrichmentStatute of LimitationsEquitable EstoppelAlter Ego LiabilityCommon-Law Indemnification
References
20
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 05642 [187 AD3d 1651]
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 09, 2020

Matter of Roesch v. State of New York

Petitioner Joseph Roesch, a resident at Central New York Psychiatric Center, commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding seeking assignment of counsel and poor person status. The Supreme Court, Oneida County, denied his application and dismissed the petition sua sponte. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the judgment, concluding that the petition was wholly without merit as it sought only counsel without a proper cause of action or linkage to the respondent. The court also found no abuse of discretion in denying poor person status, as the CPLR article 78 petition lacked arguable merit.

CPLR Article 78Poor Person StatusAssignment of CounselSua Sponte DismissalAppellate ReviewPsychiatric Center ResidentAbuse of DiscretionArguable MeritFinal JudgmentAppellate Division Fourth Department
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 1,568 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