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. 2019 NY Slip Op 00660 [168 AD3d 1339]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 31, 2019

Matter of LeSane (Commissioner of Labor)

Robert M. LeSane, a maintenance worker, was terminated from his employment due to chronic tardiness, despite receiving multiple warnings, including a final written warning. He subsequently filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which was denied on the grounds of misconduct. This decision was upheld by an Administrative Law Judge and, later, by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. LeSane appealed the Board's decision, but the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the ruling, concluding that continued tardiness after prior warnings constitutes disqualifying misconduct and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

unemployment insurance benefitsmisconducttardinessprior warningssubstantial evidenceAppellate Divisionjudicial reviewemployer policytermination of employmentadministrative law
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Barnett v. Jamesway Corp. (In Re Jamesway Corp.)

This memorandum decision addresses a dispute concerning the administrative priority of attorneys' fees awarded under the Worker Adjustment and Retraining Notification Act (WARN Act) to former employees of Jamesway Corp., as well as the scope of a prior summary judgment decision. The court determined that post-petition attorneys' fees, stemming from the debtor's continued litigation and loss, are entitled to administrative expense priority under the Bankruptcy Code. This decision applies to Union employees who accepted offers of judgment, deemed "Accepting Plaintiffs," as their offers were executory accords breached by Jamesway. However, the decision explicitly excludes "Grievance Claimants," as their terminations occurred before the WARN Act triggering event. The ruling emphasizes the public policy behind fee-shifting statutes to encourage legal representation for workers and ensure compliance.

WARN ActAdministrative PriorityAttorneys' FeesBankruptcy CodeExecutory AccordOffer of JudgmentWage ClaimsEmployee RightsStatutory InterpretationPost-petition Claims
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Harris

This concurring opinion addresses a defendant's appeal challenging the legality of his arrest and the admissibility of his written confession. The defendant contended that his arrest lacked probable cause and that his confession, given after Miranda warnings, should have been suppressed. The court found that ample probable cause existed, citing the victim's prior statements, diary entries, and other incriminating evidence. While a lower court initially suppressed an apartment confession based on a *Payton v New York* violation, this opinion asserts that the police entry was consensual. Furthermore, it concludes that a subsequent written confession was admissible due to the attenuation of any potential taint from the initial arrest, given the time lapse and rereading of Miranda rights. Thus, the defendant's contentions were ultimately deemed without merit.

Probable CauseWarrantless ArrestMiranda RightsConfession AdmissibilityPayton v New YorkFourth AmendmentAttenuation DoctrineVoluntary ConsentCriminal ProcedureAppellate Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Power v. Crown Controls Corp.

Plaintiff James Power was severely injured when a forklift manufactured by defendant Crown Controls Corporation tipped over during his employment. Power admitted he had not read the operator's warning sign or manual, which contained warnings against carrying passengers and elevating without a safety platform. Crown moved for partial summary judgment, arguing that Power's failure to read the warnings negated proximate causation for his claim of inadequate warning. The court acknowledged that generally, a plaintiff's failure to read a warning can rebut the presumption of causation, especially in non-workplace contexts. However, the court denied summary judgment, reasoning that in a workplace setting, a proper warning might have reached the plaintiff through his employer's officials or fellow workers, thus establishing a potential for proximate causation.

Products LiabilityForklift AccidentWarning LabelProximate CauseSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyEmployer LiabilityIndustrial AccidentNegligenceDuty to Warn
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 1990

In re the Claim of Thomas Sligh

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which upheld its prior ruling that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to employment termination caused by misconduct. The Board's decision, filed on March 7, 1990, was found to be supported by substantial evidence. The evidence indicated that the claimant, a porter, had received both oral and written warnings regarding excessive absenteeism and admitted to multiple absences and failing to report for an entire week without calling in. The court affirmed the decision, noting that unreported and excessive absences constitute misconduct warranting disqualification from benefits.

Unemployment InsuranceAbsenteeismMisconductEmployment TerminationAppeal BoardPorterWarningsDisqualificationLabor LawJudicial Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

In re the Claim of Heath

The claimant, a probationary factory worker, was discharged for failing to wear safety glasses in a designated factory area, violating a known employer safety policy. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board subsequently ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The record indicated that the claimant had been informed of the safety policy during orientation and had received two prior reprimands for similar infractions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the finding of misconduct. The court also noted that the company handbook's requirement for a written warning before termination did not apply to probationary employees.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductSafety Policy ViolationProbationary EmployeeSafety GlassesDisqualificationEmployer PolicyWorkplace SafetyAffirmed DecisionAppellate Review
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Marchetta

The defendant, Robert Marchetta, a Port Authority police officer, was charged with menacing and disorderly conduct stemming from a traffic dispute. He sought to suppress a written statement given to the Port Authority police. The court reviewed a Huntley hearing transcript and denied the defendant's motion to suppress. The court found that the statement was not coerced under Garrity v. New Jersey principles, as there was no explicit threat of job loss. Furthermore, Miranda warnings were deemed unnecessary because the defendant was not in custody or subjected to interrogation when he provided the statement. The court also held that failing to fully disclose details of the criminal complaint did not render the statement involuntary.

Criminal LawSuppression MotionHuntley HearingFifth AmendmentSelf-IncriminationPublic EmployeesPolice MisconductCoercionMiranda WarningsCustodial Interrogation
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 1980

Wernham v. Moore

The plaintiff, an unnamed former "permanent employee" of the Episcopal Mission Society (Society), was terminated in 1978 for allegedly leaving a group home unattended. The plaintiff claims the dismissal was without just cause, arguing he was on authorized leave, and that the Society failed to follow its own personnel manual procedures requiring written warnings and meetings for non-major violations. A key contention is that the Society's actions constitute "State action" due to its compliance with Department of Social Services regulations (18 NYCRR 441.4), which would subject it to due process requirements. The court found that while the Society is regulated, a factual question remains regarding a "significant nexus" for State action, which cannot be resolved solely on a motion to dismiss. The plaintiff also suggested the manuals represented a bilateral agreement, but the complaint lacked specificity on this point. Ultimately, the Supreme Court's order affirming the motion to dismiss the complaint for legal insufficiency was affirmed.

Employment TerminationState Action DoctrineDue ProcessPersonnel ManualsDismissal ProceduresDepartment of Social Services RegulationsRegulatory ComplianceMotion to DismissLegal SufficiencyAppellate Review
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 22, 2002

Briggs v. New York State Department of Transportation

Plaintiff Cecilia Briggs initiated a lawsuit against the New York State Department of Transportation, the State of New York, and several individual employees, alleging violations of Title VII, the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), and the New York State Human Rights Law (HRL). Her claims included sexual harassment, hostile work environment, and retaliation. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, which the court partially granted and partially denied. The court dismissed claims for monetary damages under the ADA and HRL against the State, NYSDOT, and individual defendants in their official capacities, citing Eleventh Amendment immunity. Title VII and ADA claims against individual defendants in their individual capacities were also dismissed. Furthermore, specific hostile work environment allegations and a claim regarding written warnings for sick leave were dismissed due to untimeliness or failure to exhaust administrative remedies. A claim against Charles Lamendola under the HRL was also dismissed. However, other claims, including those of retaliation and HRL claims against other individual defendants for their direct involvement in discriminatory conduct, were allowed to proceed.

Employment DiscriminationSexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationTitle VII ClaimsADA ClaimsHuman Rights Law (HRL)Eleventh Amendment ImmunityMotion to DismissAdministrative Remedies
References
48
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2007

Ribaudo v. Delaney Construction Corp.

Plaintiff, while riding his bicycle, was injured after he rode into a wet flowable fill at a sewer renovation construction site in the Town of Queensbury, despite the presence of warning signs and barriers. He subsequently sued Delaney Construction Corporation and the Town of Queensbury, alleging negligent failure to erect proper barriers and adequately warn of dangerous road conditions. The defendants moved for summary judgment, contending the plaintiff's actions were the sole proximate cause of his injuries. The Supreme Court denied the motion, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the sufficiency of warnings. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, finding that the plaintiff failed to provide substantive evidence to challenge the adequacy of the warning signs and barricades, and noting his violation of Vehicle and Traffic Law by ignoring the signs. Consequently, summary judgment was awarded to the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed.

Bicycle AccidentConstruction SiteSinkholeWarning SignsTraffic Control DevicesSummary JudgmentNegligenceProximate CauseContributory NegligenceVehicle and Traffic Law
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 642 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