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. SFO 0487051
Regular
Jul 22, 2008

JOSEPH DELLAFOSSE vs. WEBCOR BUILDERS, INC., ZURICH AMERICA INSURANCE COMPANY

This case concerns whether Joseph Dellafosse's workers' compensation claim for injuries sustained on March 24, 2004, is barred by Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) as a post-termination claim. The Board denied reconsideration, upholding the WCJ's finding that the applicant failed to demonstrate by a preponderance of evidence that the employer had notice of the injury before layoff notice or that medical records pre-dated the layoff notice. A dissenting commissioner argued the employer failed to prove it was a post-termination claim first, and that the applicant's testimony regarding the sequence of injury notification and layoff notice was improperly discredited.

Labor Code section 3600(a)(10)post-termination claimnotice of layoffnotice of injurypreponderance of evidenceaffirmative defenseAOE/COEcredibilityworkers' compensationWCJ
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

C.B.S., Inc. v. International Photographers of the Motion Picture Industry

The plaintiff, C. B. S., Inc., filed a motion for a temporary injunction to prevent arbitration demanded by Local 644, arguing that no valid arbitration agreement existed between them and that the terminations at issue were non-arbitrable layoffs. The defendant, Local 644, cross-moved to compel arbitration concerning the "arbitrary and capricious discharges" of three union members. The court found that Local 644 was indeed a signatory to and covered by the arbitration clause in the collective bargaining agreement. Furthermore, the court determined that whether the terminations constituted layoffs or arbitrary discharges was a matter to be decided by an arbitrator, as the contract did not unambiguously exclude layoffs from the arbitration clause. Consequently, the court denied CBS's motion for a stay of arbitration and granted Local 644's motion to compel arbitration.

ArbitrationLayoffsDischargesCollective Bargaining AgreementUnionEmployerTemporary InjunctionMotion to Compel ArbitrationArbitrabilityContract Interpretation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 11, 2002

Termine v. Continental Baking Co.

Salvatore Termine, a plaintiff, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Westchester County, which granted summary judgment to the defendant, Continental Baking Company (CBC), dismissing his personal injury complaint. Termine was injured in October 1998 while employed by Interstate Brands Corporation (IBC). CBC, the record owner of the property, had merged with its parent IBC in 1995, and its authority to do business in New York terminated shortly thereafter. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that Termine's action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law § 11 because his employer, IBC, was the actual owner of the property at the time of the accident, not CBC. The court also rejected Termine's argument regarding CBC's failure to file a deed, stating Real Property Law § 291 protects purchasers, not personal injury claimants.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityMerger of CorporationsReal Property OwnershipSummary JudgmentPersonal Injury DamagesAppellate ReviewEmployer ImmunityDelaware Corporation LawNew York Business LawDeed Filing
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Brewster v. C. H. Liebfried Manufacturing Corp.

The claimant, after sustaining a compensable injury and receiving a schedule award, was laid off by his employer. Believing the layoff was discriminatory due to his workers' compensation claim, he filed a complaint under Workers' Compensation Law section 120. The Workers' Compensation Board initially found in favor of the claimant, citing seniority and a pattern of terminating employees with compensation claims. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, concluding that the record lacked substantial evidence to support the discrimination claim. The court noted that the layoff was due to economic conditions and a lack of work, and that the claimant's union had not filed a grievance regarding the termination.

DiscriminationRetaliatory DischargeWorkers' Compensation ClaimLayoffSubstantial EvidenceWorkers' Compensation Law § 120Employer-Employee RelationsAppellate ReviewEconomic LayoffUnion Involvement
References
1
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 04998 [163 AD3d 1110]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2018

Matter of Civil Serv. Empls. Assn., Inc., Local 1000, AFSCME, AFL-CIO v. Olympic Regional Dev. Auth.

This case addresses whether seasonal employees who are laid off and subsequently rehired retain their original collective bargaining unit affiliation under Public Authorities Law § 2629 (2) (a). The Civil Service Employees Association (CSEA) challenged Olympic Regional Development Authority's (Olympic) decision to place rehired seasonal employees into Olympic's bargaining unit, arguing layoffs are not terminations. The Supreme Court initially sided with CSEA, annulling Olympic's determination. However, the Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed this decision. The Appellate Division held that the phrase 'terminated or otherwise ceases, by any means' in the statute includes layoffs, thus meaning rehired seasonal employees are not entitled to return to their former negotiating unit. The court emphasized that interpreting 'by any means' as petitioner urged would render the phrase superfluous.

Public Authorities LawCollective Bargaining UnitLayoffRehireStatutory InterpretationCivil Service EmployeesSeasonal EmployeesBelleayre Mountain Ski CenterOlympic Regional Development AuthorityEmployment Termination
References
18
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 27, 1994

In re the Guardianship & Custody of Angela Marie N.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of disposition in Family Court, New York County, which terminated a respondent's parental rights. The termination was based on a finding of mental illness, supported by extensive unrefuted evidence including the respondent's chronic degenerating mental condition, frequent hospitalizations, and failure to adhere to any treatment plan. A court-appointed psychiatrist concluded there was no possibility of improvement in the foreseeable future, confirming the respondent's inability to provide adequate care for her children. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the order, finding clear and convincing evidence for the termination and that the disposition, committing guardianship to the petitioner, was in the children's best interests. Furthermore, the court found no ineffective assistance of counsel, stating that strategic decisions should not be reevaluated with hindsight.

Parental Rights TerminationMental IllnessChild WelfareGuardianshipIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewFamily LawBest Interests of the ChildSocial Services Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 06, 1975

Sable v. Sperry Gyroscope Division

This case concerns an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, entered on February 6, 1975, which denied a petitioner's application for a temporary injunction. The injunction sought to prevent the layoff of certain employees by the respondents. The layoffs were proposed due to economic factors and were conducted according to a collective bargaining agreement based on seniority. Employees over 40, through their union, alleged age discrimination, prompting the Commissioner of the State Division of Human Rights to seek the injunction. The court affirmed the denial, reasoning that legal remedies were not inadequate, and there was no apparent irreparable injury. The decision also noted the unlikelihood of a probable cause finding by the State Division of Human Rights, given the layoffs were pursuant to a seniority-based collective bargaining agreement.

Age DiscriminationLayoffsTemporary InjunctionSeniority RightsCollective Bargaining AgreementHuman Rights DivisionEconomic LayoffsIrreparable InjuryLegal RemediesAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. ADJ7379899
Regular
Nov 12, 2012

DARRIN LANNING vs. BAYWOOD INTERIORS, INC., STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address the defendant's contention that the WCJ erred by deeming the post-termination defense moot. The Board clarified that Labor Code section 3600(a)(10) provides a defense against claims filed after termination or layoff, and this issue is not moot if an industrial injury is found. Consequently, the Board rescinded the prior findings and returned the case for further proceedings to determine if the post-termination defense applies and, if so, whether applicant meets any exceptions. The merits of the original finding of industrial injury were not decided and are subject to a new ruling after the post-termination defense is resolved.

AOE/COEpost-termination defenseLabor Code section 3600(a)(10)industrial injurycabinetmakerlower backleft groinright kneemootfindings of fact
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 2,273 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