green
Positive treatment
15.5 score
Treatment trajectory · 2014 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2014
2020
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 16 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Matter of Ryan (Commr. of Labor)
Notwithstanding proof in the record that might support a contrary conclusion, we find that the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s decisions that La Cruz, while not directly supervising claimant’s daily RT activities for the client, retained sufficient overall control over the work performed by claimant and those similarly situated to establish an employer-employee relationship (see Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc .—Commis sioner of Labor], 118 AD3d at 1201-1202; Matter of Scinta [ExamOne World Wide Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 113 AD3d at 960-961; …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Raduns v. Prack
Petitioner is not entitled to be restored to the status she enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination (see Matter of Herring v Prack, 118 AD3d 1200, 1200 [2014]; Matter of Burt v Connolly, 116 AD3d 1283, 1283 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MatterofRadunsvPrack
Petitioner is not entitled to be restored to the status she enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination (see Matter of Herring v Prack, -2- 518742 118 AD3d 1200, 1200 [2014]; Matter of Burt v Connolly, 116 AD3d 1283, 1283 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Raduns v. Prack
Petitioner is not entitled to be restored to the status she enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination (see Matter of Herring v Prack, 118 AD3d 1200, 1200 [2014]; Matter of Burt v Connolly, 116 AD3d 1283, 1283 [2014]).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Mackey
The foregoing indicates that Prometric retained sufficient overall control over the work of claimant and other similarly situated NAEs to be considered their employer (see Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d at 1201-1202).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
MatterofMackey[Commr.ofLabor]
The foregoing indicates that Prometric retained sufficient overall control over the work of claimant and other similarly situated NAEs to be considered their employer (see Matter of Goddard [Summit Health Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d at 1201-1202).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
In re Mackey
The foregoing indicates that Prometric retained sufficient overall control over the work of claimant and other similarly situated NAEs to be considered their employer (see Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d at 1201-1202).
discussed
Cited "see"
Matter of Worth v. Venettozzi
Although the petition seeks restoration of privileges, petitioner “is not entitled to be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination” (Matter of West v Annucci, 134 AD3d 1379, 1380 [2015]; see Matter of Herring v Prack, 118 AD3d 1200, 1200 [2014]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MatterofLustgarten(Commr.ofLabor)
Further, "[w]here, as here, medical professionals are involved, the pertinent inquiry is whether the purported employer exercised overall control over the work performed" (Matter of Scinta [ExamOne World Wide Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 113 AD3d 959 , 960 [2014]; accord Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc.– Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1200 , 1201 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 975 [2014]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re the Claim of Lustgarten
Further, “[w]here, as here, medical professionals are involved, the pertinent inquiry is whether the purported employer exercised overall control over the work performed” (Matter of Scinta [ExamOne World Wide Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 113 AD3d 959 , 960 [2014]; accord Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1200 , 1201 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 975 [2014]).
discussed
Cited "see"
In re the Claim of Lustgarten
Further, “[w]here, as here, medical professionals are involved, the pertinent inquiry is whether the purported employer exercised overall control over the work performed” (Matter of Scinta [ExamOne World Wide Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 113 AD3d 959 , 960 [2014]; accord Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1200 , 1201 [2014], lv dismissed 24 NY3d 975 [2014]).
discussed
Cited "see"
MatterofFolkvAnnucci
Although petitioner requests, both in his petition and more particularly by motion, that he be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, including reinstatement to his prior -2- 518046 job assignment and back pay, "inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status" (Matter of Hamilton v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2012]; see Matter of Herring v Prack, 118 AD3d 1200, 1200 [2014]).
discussed
Cited "see"
Folk v. Annucci
Although petitioner requests, both in his petition and more particularly by motion, that he be restored to the status that he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, including reinstatement to his prior job assignment and back pay, “inmates have no constitutional or statutory right to their prior housing or programming status” CMatter of Hamilton v Bezio, 93 AD3d 1049, 1050 [2012]; see Matter of Herring v Brack, 118 AD3d 1200 , 1200 [2014]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re LaValley
In our view, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant was an employee of West, even if evidence exists to support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Parisi [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d at 456 ; Matter of Spinnell [Commissioner of Labor], 300 AD2d 770, 771 [2002]; see also Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1200 , 1201-1202 [2014]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
MatterofLavalley[Commr.ofLabor]
In our view, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board's decision that claimant was an employee of West, even if evidence exists to support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Parisi [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d at 456 ; Matter of Spinnell [Commissioner of Labor], 300 AD2d 770, 771 [2002]; see also Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1200 , 1201-1202 [2014]).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In re LaValley
In our view, the foregoing constitutes substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision that claimant was an employee of West, even if evidence exists to support a contrary conclusion (see Matter of Parisi [Commissioner of Labor], 54 AD3d at 456 ; Matter of Spinnell [Commissioner of Labor], 300 AD2d 770, 771 [2002]; see also Matter of Goddard [Summit Health, Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 118 AD3d 1200 , 1201-1202 [2014]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Melvin Herring
v.
Albert Prack, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs
v.
Albert Prack, as Director of Special Housing and Inmate Disciplinary Programs
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jun 19, 2014.
Cited by 13 opinions | Published
Proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 (transferred to this Court by order of the Supreme Court, entered in Albany County) to review a determination of the Commissioner of Corrections and Community Supervision which found petitioner guilty of violating certain prison disciplinary rules.
Petitioner commenced this CPLR article 78 proceeding challenging a disciplinary determination finding him guilty of violating numerous prison disciplinary rules. The Attorney General has advised this Court that the determination at issue has been administratively reversed, all references thereto have been expunged from petitioner’s institutional record and the mandatory surcharge has been refunded to his inmate account. As petitioner has received all the relief to which he is entitled, the petition is dismissed as moot (see Matter of Toliver v Fischer, 114 AD3d 984, 984 [2014]). To the extent that petitioner requests that he be restored to the status he enjoyed prior to the disciplinary determination, we note that he is not entitled to such relief (see Matter of Houghtaling v Fischer, 106 AD3d 1351, 1351 [2013]).
Stein, J.P., Garry, Rose, Lynch and Devine, JJ., concur. Adjudged that the petition is dismissed, as moot, without costs.