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. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waisome v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Felix Waisome, along with other Black applicants, initiated a class action against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc., alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The plaintiffs claimed that the Port Authority's promotion selection criteria for police sergeants had an adverse, discriminatory impact on Black applicants. Waisome sought class certification and partial summary judgment on liability, while the Port Authority cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted class certification but ultimately sided with the defendants, concluding that the statistical disparities in selection rates were insufficient, both in practical and legal terms, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory impact. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate ImpactStatistical SignificanceSummary JudgmentPolice PromotionsRule 23Rule 56
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Erie County Water Authority v. Kramer

The Erie County Water Authority initiated an Article 78 proceeding to prevent the New York State Labor Relations Board from asserting jurisdiction over an unfair labor practice complaint. The Authority, a state agency, argued its exemption from the New York State Labor Relations Act, despite a provision in the Public Authorities Law stating it is an 'employer.' The court reviewed relevant labor and civil service laws, as well as prior case law concerning state agencies and collective bargaining. Ultimately, the court determined that the Authority, as an agency of the state, falls under the exemptions of Labor Law Section 715, thus not subject to the collective bargaining requirements of Article 20 of the Labor Law. Therefore, the application to enjoin the Board's actions was granted due to lack of jurisdiction.

Article 78Civil Practice ActPublic Authorities LawLabor LawState AgencyUnfair Labor PracticeCollective BargainingJurisdiction DisputeErie County Water AuthorityNew York State Labor Relations Board
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lorelli v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Petitioners, employees of the New York City Transit Authority (TA), initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA) to make promotions from their 1963 Surface Line Dispatcher list. They argued that MABSTOA, described as a TA subsidiary, should be subject to civil service requirements, and appointments should come from the TA promotion list. MABSTOA, joined by Local 100 of the Transit Workers Union, opposed the application, asserting its independent, temporary status and the distinct employment terms for its workers. The court denied the petition, ruling that MABSTOA's temporary operational status, established during an emergency acquisition of bus lines, justified its exclusion from civil service status as per Public Authorities Law § 1203-a. The court also found no intent for the TA promotion list to cover MABSTOA vacancies and upheld the validity of the legislative provision.

Public Authorities LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 ProceedingPromotionTemporary EmploymentPublic Benefit CorporationSubsidiaryConstitutional LawNew York City Transit AuthorityManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 27, 1984

Annis v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioner Nicholas Annis, injured in a June 1983 subway derailment, sought to serve a late notice of claim against the Transit Authority after his initial notice was two days past the 90-day period and subsequently disallowed. The Supreme Court initially denied both the application and a motion to renew. On appeal, the order was unanimously reversed. The appellate court found it an improvident exercise of discretion to deny leave, noting the Transit Authority's actual knowledge of the widespread accident and the lack of prejudice from the minimal delay. The petitioner's delay in filing was attributed to his initial belief that his injury was minor, which later worsened, prompting him to retain counsel.

Late Notice of ClaimSubway DerailmentGeneral Municipal Law § 50-eJudicial DiscretionActual Knowledge DoctrinePrejudice AssessmentMotion to RenewPersonal Injury LitigationAppellate ReviewNew York Supreme Court
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 10, 1956

New York Transit Authority v. Loos

The New York City Transit Authority (plaintiff) sought an injunction against the Motormen’s Benevolent Association, Inc. and individual motormen (defendants) to prevent them from striking or instigating a strike. The plaintiff argued that a strike would violate the Condon-Wadlin Act (Civil Service Law, § 22-a) and cause irreparable damage as the Transit Authority performs a governmental function. The defendants cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, enjoin the plaintiff from recognizing the Transport Workers’ Union, recognize the Motormen’s Benevolent Association, and enjoin enforcement of the Condon-Wadlin Act. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite, affirming the temporary stay, and denied all of the defendants' cross-applications. The court emphasized that rapid transit operation is a vital governmental function in New York City, making strikes by its employees unlawful, both under common law and the Condon-Wadlin Act. An early trial was ordered.

InjunctionPublic EmployeesStrike ProhibitionCondon-Wadlin ActGovernmental FunctionRapid TransitLabor RelationsMotormenNew York CityCollective Bargaining
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Duff v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Claimant, a property manager for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was scheduled to work at One World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but remained at home. After learning of the attack, he voluntarily traveled to the site, was present when the second tower fell, and subsequently assisted as a volunteer in rescue efforts, sustaining psychological injuries. His initial claim for workers’ compensation benefits was established, but the Workers’ Compensation Board later reversed these decisions, finding his injury not work-related. Claimant appealed the Board's decisions, arguing that the employer's objection was untimely and that the Board erred in its finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board has discretionary authority to review untimely applications and that substantial evidence supported the finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterPsychological InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderVolunteer ActionsWork-RelatednessCompensability of InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewTimeliness of ObjectionDiscretionary Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Julian v. New York City Transit Authority

Vera Julian, a pro se plaintiff, sued the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) after her employment termination and the denial of disability benefits. Julian sustained a back injury on the job in 1988, leading to a finding of permanent disability. Following bureaucratic errors regarding her termination and disability applications, she filed an Article 78 proceeding in state court, which resulted in a stipulation allowing her to reapply for benefits. However, her subsequent applications were denied. In this federal action, Julian alleged employment discrimination (race, gender, age, marital status, disability) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and ADEA, as well as conspiracy, retaliation, and due process violations. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that Julian failed to exhaust administrative remedies for discrimination claims, that her allegations were conclusory, and that state law provided adequate due process. The court also dismissed her state law claims, suggesting that her remedy lies in state court.

Employment DiscriminationDisability BenefitsTermination of EmploymentRes JudicataDue ProcessCivil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActRehabilitation ActWorkers' CompensationSocial Security Disability
References
53
Showing 1-10 of 14,833 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