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
Jan 22, 1990

Giles v. State Division of Human Rights

Respondent Universal Instruments Corporation laid off approximately 1,000 employees due to a drastic reduction in customer orders. Four female employees (petitioners) who were laid off in August 1985 filed discrimination complaints with the State Division of Human Rights, alleging sex and/or age discrimination. The Division conducted investigations and found no probable cause. Petitioners then sought judicial review, and the Supreme Court annulled the Division's determinations, remitting the matters for further proceedings. This appellate court reversed the Supreme Court's judgments, finding that the appropriate standard of review for the Division's no probable cause determinations was whether they were arbitrary and capricious or lacked a rational basis. Applying this standard, the court concluded that the Division rationally found an insufficient factual basis for unlawful discrimination, as the layoffs were due to economic necessity and the need to retain qualified workers, and the investigative process was fair. Therefore, the Division's no probable cause determinations were improperly annulled.

Employment DiscriminationSex DiscriminationAge DiscriminationLayoffsEconomic ReasonsProbable CauseJudicial ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardRational Basis ReviewAdministrative Determinations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Bonilla

Claimant, a postal worker, was arrested for threatening suicide and subsequently required to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by releasing his medical records to determine his fitness for duty. He refused to release these records, which prevented the completion of the psychiatric examination and ultimately led to him not being permitted to return to work. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board then disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits, ruling that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause. This decision was based on the premise that a claimant who fails to take a reasonably required step as a prerequisite to continued employment is deemed to have voluntarily left their job without good cause. The appellate court affirmed the Board's determination, finding it supported by substantial evidence in the record.

Voluntary separationUnemployment benefitsGood cause for leaving employmentMedical records releaseFitness for dutyPsychiatric evaluationPostal workerDisqualification from benefitsSubstantial evidence
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

State Division of Human Rights v. Dunlop Tire & Rubber Corp.

This proceeding sought to annul a determination of no probable cause by the New York State Division of Human Rights, affirmed by the State Human Rights Appeal Board. The petitioner alleged racial discrimination by Dunlop Tire and Rubber Corporation and United Rubber Workers, Local No. 135. The court ruled that a prior Federal District Court dismissal of the petitioner's identical discrimination claim against the same defendants, under federal law, barred the instant state action based on the doctrine of res judicata. The elements required for establishing a prima facie case in both federal and state actions were deemed nearly identical. Additionally, the court found substantial evidence supported the New York State Human Rights Appeal Board's determination.

Human Rights LawRacial DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationRes JudicataExecutive LawPrior AdjudicationState Division of Human RightsHuman Rights Appeal BoardNew YorkFederal Precedent
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 1982

Hodge v. D'Elia

This case involves a proceeding under CPLR article 78 to review a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services. The determination affirmed a local agency's decision to reduce the petitioner's public assistance grant. This reduction was for the recoupment of income tax refunds and workers' compensation benefits received by the petitioner. Although the court agreed that the petitioner willfully withheld information, it found that the respondents failed to evaluate if the recoupment rate would cause undue hardship. Consequently, the court annulled the determination and remitted the matter for further proceedings to assess undue hardship.

Public AssistanceRecoupmentIncome Tax RefundsWorkers' Compensation BenefitsUndue HardshipCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewFair HearingAnnulmentRemittal
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Benneman

The claimant sought unemployment insurance benefits after working as a word processor for National Freelancers, Inc., a temporary placement service. National objected to the initial determination of eligibility, citing independent contractor status, voluntary separation, and unavailability for employment. Despite National's objections, the Administrative Law Judge sustained the claimant's eligibility, a decision later affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. National appealed, contending the Board's determination lacked substantial evidence, particularly regarding the claimant's alleged voluntary separation and availability for work. The court rejected National's arguments, including its motions for adjournment or dismissal and claims of ALJ partiality, ultimately affirming the Board's decision.

Unemployment BenefitsIndependent Contractor StatusVoluntary SeparationAvailability for EmploymentAdministrative Law Judge DecisionAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdjournment DenialJudicial DiscretionEmployer Objection
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wilson v. Selsky

The petitioner, a prison inmate, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge three separate determinations that found him guilty of violating prison disciplinary rules during his participation in a work release program. The first determination involved taking unapproved cash loans from a co-worker, supported by bank records and parole officer testimony, despite the petitioner's denials. The second determination concerned altering his work schedule without parole officer approval, substantiated by time sheets and employer testimony. The third determination accused him of unauthorized driving, which was supported by witness testimony. The court confirmed all determinations and dismissed the petition, finding them supported by substantial evidence and rejecting the petitioner's claims of procedural errors, prejudice, and bias.

prison disciplinary ruleswork release programunapproved loansaltered work scheduleunauthorized drivingsubstantial evidencehearsay evidencecredibilityprocedural errorsdue process
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Connelly v. Griffin

The court confirmed the disciplinary determination against the petitioner. The determination of guilt was based on the recreation worker's testimony regarding threatening statements made by the petitioner in the gym, which the worker perceived as directed at him due to a prior disagreement. The petitioner's and inmate witnesses' contrary testimony created a credibility issue for the Hearing Officer. Furthermore, the court rejected the petitioner's claim of res judicata, clarifying that a previous disciplinary determination, arising from a guilty plea for abusive statements made to the recreation worker on a different day, was a separate incident and thus had no preclusive effect on the current disciplinary action. The petition was ultimately dismissed.

inmate disciplinedisciplinary hearingthreatening statementscredibility issueres judicatacorrectional facilitiesadministrative determinationappellate reviewevidence
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 25, 2006

East End Property Co. 1 v. Kessel

The case involves a hybrid proceeding (CPLR article 78) and a taxpayer action (State Finance Law § 123-b) challenging two determinations by the Long Island Power Authority (LIPA) dated December 15, 2005. These determinations adopted a State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) findings statement and authorized LIPA to enter into a power purchase agreement with Caithness Long Island, LLC, for a 350-megawatt power plant in Brookhaven. The petitioners-plaintiffs appealed from an order and judgment which denied their amended petition, dismissed the proceeding, and dismissed the sixth and seventh causes of action. The appellate court affirmed, finding that while some civic associations had standing for certain claims, none had standing for the sixth cause of action (violations of Public Authorities Law § 1020-f) and the individual appellants failed to demonstrate sufficient injury. The court also affirmed the dismissal of the CPLR article 78 proceeding, concluding that LIPA satisfied its SEQRA obligations, including taking a "hard look" at environmental impacts and adequately analyzing alternatives. The court further ruled that LIPA's segmentation of the Iroquois Pipeline Extension environmental review was not improper due to federal preemption by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), and that no supplemental EIS was required. Finally, the court found the taxpayer action allegations insufficient to establish an illegal use of state funds under State Finance Law § 123-b.

Environmental ReviewSEQRAStandingTaxpayer ActionHybrid ProceedingPower Purchase AgreementLong Island Power AuthorityFederal PreemptionSegmentationAdministrative Law
References
55
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Diaz

This case concerns an appeal by the City of New York regarding unemployment insurance benefits for eight school crossing guards. Their positions ended, but they were offered comparable work as monitors, which they declined, subsequently filing for benefits. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed an Administrative Law Judge's decision ruling the claimants eligible, rejecting the City's arguments of refusal of employment without good cause or voluntary separation from employment. The Appellate Division reversed this decision, stating that the board erred in concluding the claimants' employment simply ended, and that they thoughtlessly disregarded a continuing opportunity for work. The matter was remitted to the board for further proceedings to determine if the claimants voluntarily caused their separation from employment.

Unemployment InsuranceEligibility for BenefitsRefusal of Employment OfferVoluntary Separation from EmploymentGood CauseAdministrative Law Judge DecisionUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardJudicial ReviewAppellate Court DecisionRemittal
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Whisenhunt v. Sylvania Corp.

This wrongful death action arises from the death of J.W. Whisenhunt in a pipeline accident in New York in 1979. His widow, as administratrix of his estate, brought suit against several corporations and individuals, alleging negligence and violations of safety codes. The defendant corporations moved to dismiss certain causes of action, contending they were time-barred under New York's two-year statute of limitations. The plaintiff argued for the application of Arkansas's three-year statute of limitations, citing its substantive nature. The court applied New York's conflict of laws rules, determining that New York's substantive law, including its statute of limitations, should govern. Consequently, the court granted the defendant corporations' motion to dismiss specific causes of action. Wilson's separate motion to dismiss other causes of action related to an easement was denied due to insufficient evidence.

Wrongful DeathConflict of LawsStatute of LimitationsDiversity JurisdictionErie DoctrineChoice of LawGrouping of ContactsLex Loci DelictiNew York LawArkansas Law
References
21
Showing 1-10 of 13,101 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