New York State's Workers' Compensation Board offers NYS Workers' Compensation 101 with the Advocate for Injured Workers on November 3, 2026

On November 3, 2026, the New York State's Workers' Compensation Board’s Advocate for Injured Workers will present a program focusing on the basics of the New York State Workers’ Compensation System, including employees’ rights if they become injured or ill on the job. This presentation will also cover:

• Employees’ benefits under workers’ compensation
• How to file a claim
• How to get help with your claim if needed
• Tips and best practices for injured workers

The session is free and there will be time at the end for questions.

Important: When you register, you will automatically receive a confirmation email that includes a calendar invite. Be sure to add the invite to your calendar so you have a reminder! If you don’t receive the confirmation email in your inbox, please check your junk or spam folder.

Register here

for the Tuesday, November 3, 2026, 11:00 a.m. – 12:00 p.m. session.

New York City Department of Education's rejection of an application for security clearance held irrational under the circumstances

A New York State Supreme Court denied the Plaintiff's CPLR Article 78 petition seeking annulment of a determination by the New York City Department of Education [DOE] resulting in an administratively closing Plaintiff's application for a security clearance. 

The Appellate Division unanimously reversed the Supreme Court's ruling, on the law, reinstated Plaintiff's Article 78 proceeding and granted the Plaintiff's petition to the extent of annulling DOE's determination and directed DOE to process Plaintiff's security clearance application. This decision of the Appellate Division ultimately resulted in Plaintiff and DOE entering into a settlement agreement resolving* the prior Article 78 proceeding brought by Plaintiff. 

Plaintiff was subsequently nominated for appointment to a position by an independent agency that provided such services to DOE. Such employment, however, was contingent  on Plaintiff receiving security clearance with DOE. Plaintiff was then notified that her application was "administratively closed with no determination made," explaining that she had been "nominated for a position as a Speech Pathologist with independent providers" and that based on the terms of the settlement agreement she was not permitted to work as an independent provider. Petitioner challenged DOE's determination by filing a second CPLR Article 78 action. 

It was undisputed that Plaintiff was nominated for a position by Salveo, an agency providing such services to DOE. The Appellate Division, rejecting DOE's claim that Plaintiff had admitted her role to be that of an independent provider, explained that DOE misread Plaintiff's petition. Plaintiff, said the Appellate Division, used the phrase to describe the ambiguity at issue and did not concede DOE's interpretation, concluded that DOE's determination rested on its misreading of the settlement agreement. 

* The Appellate Division's decision notes that DOE retained "the right to deny [Petitioner] clearance . . . for any reason, other than the reasons that gave rise to the [prior] litigation."

Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.