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. 526927
Regular Panel Decision
May 09, 2019

Matter of Curry v. Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles

In Matter of Curry v Commissioner of N.Y. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles, petitioner Joseph P. Curry appealed a judgment dismissing his CPLR article 78 petition. Curry's driver's license was revoked in 2012 due to a fifth alcohol-related driving offense. His 2017 application for relicensing and a hardship exception was denied by the Department of Motor Vehicles' Driver Improvement Bureau and affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Board. Curry challenged this denial as arbitrary and capricious, citing rehabilitation efforts and medical needs for a license. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal, finding the Commissioner's denial was not arbitrary or capricious given Curry's history of multiple relapses, traffic infractions, and an incomplete DWI evaluation, despite his claims of sobriety and medical appointments.

Driver's License RevocationAlcohol-Related OffensesHardship ExceptionCPLR article 78Administrative ReviewArbitrary and Capricious StandardDepartment of Motor VehiclesReissuance DiscretionRehabilitation EffortsMedical Limitations
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2003

Yanulavich v. Appeals Board of Administrative Adjudication Bureau of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The petitioner appealed the dismissal of his CPLR article 78 proceeding, which challenged the Department of Motor Vehicles' (DMV) revocation of his driver's license. The revocation stemmed from an incident where the petitioner, who reported vision issues due to diabetes, struck a flag person. After failing initial vision tests and subsequently passing with corrective lenses, the petitioner failed a road test, leading to the license revocation. The appellate court affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the DMV had reasonable grounds, based on the accident, the petitioner's statement, and his physician's report, to require a road test, thus supporting the revocation.

driver's licenselicense revocationvision impairmentdiabetesroad test failureadministrative appealCPLR Article 78Vehicle and Traffic Lawreasonable groundsmotor vehicle accident
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 23, 2005

Stamm v. PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning plaintiffs Thoburn, III (Toby) and Cannon, who, as young children, were present during a car accident in 1985 that left their mother with severe and permanent brain injuries. They subsequently filed a lawsuit against their father, Thoburn M. Stamm, Jr., and PHH Vehicle Management Services, LLC, alleging physical and emotional injuries, specifically emotional distress and post-traumatic stress syndrome, under the 'zone of danger' theory. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that the alleged emotional injuries were not proximately caused by the direct observation of their mother's serious injury during the accident. The Supreme Court initially denied the defendants' motions, but the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting summary judgment to the defendants and dismissing the complaint with prejudice, concluding that plaintiffs failed to provide sufficient evidence to support their zone of danger claims.

Zone of DangerNegligent Infliction of Emotional DistressSummary JudgmentAppellate ReversalCar AccidentEmotional InjuryParental ConsortiumPsychiatric EvaluationEvidentiary StandardsProximate Causation
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re Herrera

This case concerns motions filed by Capital One Auto Finance and Marco Herrera in a Chapter 7 bankruptcy proceeding. Capital One sought relief from the automatic stay, while the Debtor, Marco Herrera, cross-moved to redeem his 2006 Yukon Denali under 11 U.S.C. § 722. The central issue revolved around determining the appropriate replacement value of the vehicle for redemption. The Debtor's proposed valuation of $6,425, supported by a Kelley Blue Book report for a different vehicle model, was rejected by the Court. The Court considered Capital One's expert appraisal and determined the replacement value to be $17,000. Additionally, the Court ruled that the automatic stay terminated due to the Debtor's failure to timely perform his stated intention to redeem, but clarified that this did not extinguish his underlying right to redeem the vehicle.

BankruptcyChapter 7Automatic StayRedemptionVehicle ValuationSecured ClaimReplacement ValueDebtor's Statement of IntentionTimelinessEvidentiary Hearing
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hall v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

The petitioner's driver's license was revoked by the Department of Motor Vehicles in 2002 for an incident in 2001, despite having previously received a restricted and then a full license for the same event. The court found that the DMV acted arbitrarily and capriciously by delaying the revocation and effectively punishing the petitioner twice. The court also clarified the interpretation of Vehicle and Traffic Law sections regarding the availability of restricted use licenses. Consequently, the court ordered the immediate restoration of the petitioner's driver's license.

Driver's License RevocationAdministrative DelayArbitrary and Capricious ActionRestricted Use LicenseVehicle and Traffic LawDouble PunishmentJudicial ReviewMotor Vehicle AccidentInsurance LapseAdministrative Error
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Stoianoff v. Commissioner of Motor Vehicles

Plaintiff Carroll B. Stoianoff brought an action against Richard E. Jackson, Commissioner of the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles, challenging the constitutionality of VTL § 502(6)(a), which mandates Social Security Number disclosure for driver's license renewal. Stoianoff alleged violations of various constitutional amendments (First, Fourth, Fourteenth, Privileges and Immunities Clause) and federal statutes (FOIA, Privacy Act, Tax Reform Act of 1976). The court dismissed all federal claims, finding no private right of action against state agencies under FOIA or the Privacy Act, and that the Social Security Act expressly permits states to require SSNs for driver's license programs. Furthermore, the court deemed Stoianoff's constitutional arguments frivolous, concluding there was no violation of free expression, unreasonable search/seizure, due process, or religious freedom, and that the Privileges and Immunities Clause was inapplicable. The court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over remaining state law claims.

Driver's License RenewalSocial Security Number DisclosureConstitutional LawFirst AmendmentFourth AmendmentFourteenth AmendmentPrivileges and Immunities ClauseFreedom of Information ActPrivacy Act of 1974Tax Reform Act of 1976
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Petrosky v. New York State Department of Motor Vehicles

Plaintiff Sherry Petrosky sued the New York State Department of Motor Vehicles (DMV) and individual defendants for sex and disability discrimination under Title VII, ADA, and New York State Human Rights Law. She alleged continuous sexual harassment and discrimination from 1981 to 1994, including unwelcome sexual advances, offensive comments, and physical humiliation. Additionally, she claimed discrimination due to her diabetes, including ignored requests for accommodation and abusive comments. Defendants moved to dismiss the claims, arguing they were time-barred and that plaintiff did not satisfy the continuing violation exception. The court denied the motion to dismiss, finding the plaintiff adequately pleaded a continuing violation and that her federal claims were not time-barred because a discriminatory event occurred on October 20, 1994, within the 180-day filing period. The court also retained jurisdiction over state law claims.

Workplace discriminationSex discriminationDisability discriminationSexual harassmentHostile work environmentStatute of limitationsContinuing violation doctrineMotion to dismissFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6)EEOC
References
15
Case No. ADJ8817767
Regular
Mar 03, 2016

YOLANDA JONES vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This Workers' Compensation Appeals Board case involves a petition for removal filed by the applicant, Yolanda Jones, against the Department of Motor Vehicles and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The applicant's attorney, Ratto Law Firm, subsequently withdrew the petition for removal. Consequently, the Board has issued an order dismissing the withdrawn petition.

Petition for RemovalWithdrawn PetitionDismissed PetitionWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardADJ8817767Department of Motor VehiclesState Compensation Insurance FundMarguerite SweeneyRatto Law Firm
References
0
Case No. ADJ450240 (SFO 0509944)
Regular
Sep 10, 2009

ARIEL LEVY vs. DEPARTMENT OF MOTOR VEHICLES, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a petition for reconsideration filed by the defendant, the Department of Motor Vehicles and State Compensation Insurance Fund. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board has granted this petition, recognizing the need for further study of the factual and legal issues. This action is intended to ensure a thorough understanding of the record and facilitate a just decision. All future communications regarding this matter should be directed to the Board's reconsideration unit.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for ReconsiderationGranting ReconsiderationDepartment of Motor VehiclesState Compensation Insurance FundStatutory Time ConstraintsFactual IssuesLegal IssuesJust and Reasoned DecisionFurther Proceedings
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 598 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