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

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Billings v. County of St. Lawrence

The petitioner, an unnamed Deputy Sheriff and correction officer for the St. Lawrence County Sheriff’s Department, was terminated after a disciplinary hearing. He was found guilty of unprofessional conduct for inappropriately delivering tobacco to an inmate and for lying during the subsequent investigation, though not for causing an inmate disturbance. Despite a Hearing Officer's recommendation for a two-month suspension, the Undersheriff of St. Lawrence County opted for termination, effective April 22, 1987. The court, in this CPLR article 78 proceeding, confirmed the determination, finding the evidence sufficient and the termination penalty not excessive given the serious nature of the misconduct in a prison setting and the petitioner's relatively short, unblemished service record.

MisconductTerminationDeputy SheriffCorrection OfficerInmate ConductDisciplinary ActionSubstantial EvidencePenalty ReviewUnprofessional ConductLack of Candor
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 02, 1973

Reeves v. Golar

A probationary patrolman's employment with the New York City Housing Authority was terminated following suspicions of narcotic use, despite his claims of medication-related quinine traces and denial of unlawful drug use. His requests for medical test reports and a thorough medical examination were denied, leading to an informal hearing and subsequent termination. The court questioned the arbitrary and capricious nature of the dismissal, highlighting that the termination was based on unproven drug use rather than work performance. Citing due process concerns under the Fourteenth Amendment regarding the petitioner's liberty interest and reputation, the court found he deserved a proper hearing to refute the charges. Consequently, the Supreme Court's judgment to reinstate the petitioner was partially reversed, and the case was remanded to the Housing Authority for a further hearing and medical investigation.

Due processArticle 78probationary employmentterminationnarcotic suspicionurine testarbitrary and capriciousliberty interestFourteenth Amendmenthearing rights
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Paisley v. Coin Device Corp.

Plaintiffs Dougal Paisley and Rohan Christie, employees of Coin Device Corporation, were terminated after being arrested for missing money, despite charges being dismissed. They subsequently filed an action against Coin Device Corporation, Biju Thomas, and Brian Gibbons, alleging malicious prosecution, wrongful termination, negligence, and loss of consortium. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss these claims. On appeal, the higher court reversed this decision, ruling that the defendants were not liable for malicious prosecution as they merely provided information to the police, who made the arrest decision. Furthermore, the court found the wrongful termination claims invalid due to the plaintiffs' at-will employment status, and the negligence claims barred by Workers' Compensation Law, leading to the dismissal of all specified claims against the appellants.

malicious prosecutionwrongful terminationnegligenceloss of consortiumpunitive damagesat-will employmentWorkers' Compensation LawCPLR 3211appealemployer liability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Coscia v. Ass'n for the Advancement of Blind & Retarded, Inc.

Claimant, a staff psychologist, was injured at work and filed for workers' compensation benefits. He subsequently filed a discrimination complaint against his employer, Association for the Advancement of Blind and Retarded, Inc., alleging retaliation for his workers' compensation claim, including demotion and exclusion from conferences. His employment was later terminated for alleged improper personal conduct. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board both ruled against the claimant, finding no evidence of discrimination under Workers' Compensation Law § 120 and concluding that the termination was due to misconduct. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the claimant failed to demonstrate a retaliatory motive and that the Board's finding of termination solely for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence.

Workers' CompensationRetaliatory DischargeDiscriminationMisconductAppellate ReviewBurden of ProofSubstantial EvidenceEmployer-Employee DisputeWorkers' Compensation LawJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 27, 2004

LoPrete v. New York City Health & Hospitals Corp.

This case concerns a petitioner's employment termination pursuant to Civil Service Law § 71. The petitioner, a motor vehicle operator, was injured on duty and granted a one-year leave of absence, which was briefly extended. However, the petitioner exceeded the authorized absence by six additional days, thereby forfeiting the right to reinstatement, consistent with Matter of Allen v Howe. A CPLR article 78 petition seeking to annul this termination was denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. This denial was subsequently and unanimously affirmed by the Appellate Division, which also found the Workers’ Compensation Board's determination irrelevant to the reinstatement issue.

Employment TerminationCivil Service LawLeave of AbsenceReinstatement RightsCPLR Article 78Workers' Compensation IrrelevanceUnauthorized AbsenceAppellate AffirmanceNew York Supreme Court
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 2015

Matter of Alexsander N.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Albany County. Petitioner initiated a permanent neglect proceeding against respondent, the mother of a child, which resulted in a suspended judgment due to respondent's failure to plan for the child's future and non-compliance with mental health treatment. Petitioner later filed a petition alleging respondent violated the suspended judgment by failing to disclose an arrest and subsequent incarceration, which led to missed appointments and visits. The Family Court revoked the suspended judgment and terminated respondent's parental rights. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's decision, finding that respondent failed to comply with the terms of the suspended judgment and that the termination of parental rights was in the child's best interests.

Parental Rights TerminationPermanent NeglectSuspended Judgment ViolationChild WelfareFamily Law AppealNon-compliance with Court OrderBest Interests of ChildMental Health IssuesChild SupervisionAppellate Affirmation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sharp v. Kiley

The petitioner's employment as a car inspector with the New York City Transit Authority was terminated due to unsatisfactory probationary performance in August 1983. An arbitrator, in April 1984, found the petitioner to be a probationary employee and upheld the discharge. Subsequently, the petitioner initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, challenging the termination and reasserting improper discharge without a hearing as a permanent employee. The appellate court determined that the re-litigation of this identical claim was barred by the doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel, reversing the Supreme Court's judgment that had granted the petition and instead granted the appellants' cross motion to dismiss the proceeding.

Employment TerminationProbationary EmployeeGrievance ProcedureArbitration AwardRes JudicataCollateral EstoppelCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewNew York City Transit AuthorityPublic Sector Employment
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pollman v. Fahey

The petitioner, a clerk typist, was terminated from her employment with the Albany County Social Services Department following an incident on June 16, 1983. After a reprimand, she became distressed and engaged in a physical altercation with Security Officer Diane Cioffi, resulting in Cioffi's injury. Petitioner was subsequently convicted of disorderly conduct. A Civil Service Law § 75 hearing found her guilty of disruption and assault, leading to dismissal. In a CPLR article 78 proceeding, the petitioner challenged the termination, citing inadequate findings, a biased hearing officer, lack of substantial evidence, and excessive punishment. The court confirmed the determination, affirming that the findings were adequate, no bias was shown, the decision was supported by substantial evidence, and dismissal was not unduly severe given the gravity of the misconduct.

Employment TerminationMisconductAssaultCPLR Article 78Civil Service LawAdministrative HearingJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDue ProcessPanel Decision
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roman v. New York City Police Department

The petitioner's employment was terminated by the New York City Police Department due to unexcused absence, intoxication, and possession of cocaine. Despite promising to report to duty, the petitioner never appeared. Police, entering her apartment under emergency circumstances, found her unconscious and intoxicated, with cocaine residue visible. Subsequent urine tests were positive for cocaine. The court confirmed the respondent's determination, denied the petitioner's request, and dismissed the CPLR article 78 proceeding, citing substantial evidence to support the termination.

employment terminationpolice misconductCPLR Article 78emergency doctrinewarrantless entrydrug possessionpublic employee disciplinesubstantial evidenceadministrative law
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 5,719 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