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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Asset Protection & Security Services v. Service Employees International Union, Local 200 United

The Union appealed from an order that partially vacated an arbitration award. The arbitrator had determined that Asset Protection & Security Services, LP (APSS) lacked just cause to discharge an employee and ordered reinstatement with back pay. The Supreme Court vacated the award entirely. This appellate court found that the Supreme Court erred in vacating the arbitrator's finding of no just cause for termination, thereby reversing that part of the order. However, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by reinstating the employee and awarding back pay and benefits, citing the Collective Bargaining Agreement's (CBA) limitations on remedies in cases involving ICE-mandated actions. Two judges dissented in part.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee DischargeJust CauseArbitrator AuthorityJudicial ReviewPublic PolicyReinstatementBack PayCPLR
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Day v. Summit Security Services Inc.

The plaintiff, a security guard, brought a retaliation claim under Labor Law § 215 against his former employer, Summit Security Services Inc., and alleged co-employers, New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation (HHC) and Kirk Leon. Plaintiff alleged termination resulted from a complaint about underpayment by a prior employer. HHC and Leon moved to dismiss, arguing no right of action, while Summit argued it was not the employer at the time of the protected activity. The court denied HHC and Leon's motion, concluding HHC could be considered 'any other person' under the expanded Wage Theft Prevention Act and was not exempt as a political subdivision. Summit's motion to dismiss was granted, as the court found Labor Law § 215 applied only to employers at the time of the protected activity, and the WTPA did not explicitly extend liability to subsequent employers.

RetaliationLabor Law Section 215Wage Theft Prevention ActWTPAEmployer LiabilityStatutory InterpretationMotion to DismissPrevailing WageSecurity IndustryCo-employer Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Washington v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.

Plaintiff Jermaine Washington, a Black employee, filed a pro se employment discrimination and retaliation lawsuit against Securitas Security Services USA, Inc., under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Washington alleged racial discrimination based on increased payroll responsibilities, denied transfers to higher-paying sites, and a manager's "threatening" email. He also claimed retaliation after being allegedly threatened with termination for not signing employment documents and experiencing a temporary loss of compensation during a transfer. The court, presided over by Hon. Michael A. Telesca, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding that Washington failed to establish a prima facie case for discrimination and that the alleged retaliatory actions did not constitute materially adverse employment actions or were not causally linked to protected activity. Consequently, Washington's complaint was dismissed with prejudice.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIISummary JudgmentAdverse Employment ActionFailure to PromoteEmployment At-WillPayroll ResponsibilitiesEmployer-Employee DisputeFederal Court
References
35
Case No. 01CV6456 (ADS)(ARL)
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2002

Arena v. DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL SERVICES OF NASSAU

Glen Arena, a pro se plaintiff, filed a civil rights lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the Department of Social Services of Nassau County, its employees, a Family Court Justice, and attorneys. Arena alleged violations of his due process and equal protection rights stemming from state Family Court proceedings regarding the custody and visitation of his son. The United States District Court for the Eastern District of New York dismissed counts one, two, and three based on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine and the Younger abstention doctrine, citing a lack of federal court jurisdiction to review state court judgments. Additionally, the court granted Judge Richard S. Lawrence absolute judicial immunity and dismissed all claims against him. Claims against defendant Edward Emanuele, a law guardian, were dismissed because he was not a state actor for purposes of Section 1983, and conspiracy allegations against him were found to be vague. The case was closed against most defendants, leaving only Genna Currie.

Civil RightsDue ProcessEqual ProtectionRooker-Feldman DoctrineYounger Abstention DoctrineJudicial ImmunityState ActorFamily LawChild CustodyVisitation Rights
References
69
Case No. ADJ1182220 (WCK 0044768) ADJ144318 (WCK 0044769)
Regular
Feb 27, 2009

RICHARD CRUZ vs. AMERICAN PROTECTIVE SERVICES INC., CAMBRIDGE INTEGRATED SERVICES

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied reconsideration of an award to Richard Cruz. The Board adopted the findings of the Administrative Law Judge (WCJ) who found that the applicant sustained a specific industrial spinal injury on December 16, 1997, and a cumulative trauma spinal injury through January 28, 1998, while employed by American Protective Services. The WCJ found the applicant credible and relied on the opinions of two medical evaluators, Dr. Brose and Dr. Lavorgna, who ultimately supported the finding of industrial injuries. The Board gave great weight to the WCJ's credibility determination and incorporated the WCJ's report, denying the defendant's petition.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardReconsideration DeniedWCJ ReportCredibility FindingIndustrial InjurySpecific InjuryCumulative TraumaSpine InjurySecurity GuardAgreed Medical Evaluator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American International Telephone, Inc. v. Mony Travel Services, Inc.

Plaintiff American International Telephone, Inc. (AIT) sought an extension of time to serve defendant Carlos Duran, president of Mony Travel Services of Florida, Inc., after initial attempts at service were unsuccessful and Duran claimed to have moved. The court found AIT exercised reasonably diligent efforts and that extending the deadline would not prejudice Duran, who was aware of the action. Concurrently, Mony Travel Services of Florida moved for a protective order against depositions of Duran and its counsel, Francis Markey. The court denied the protective order for Duran's deposition, allowing inquiry into service of process issues. However, the protective order for Markey was granted, as mailing a copy of the complaint to an attorney is not a valid method of service under Florida law. The court granted AIT an extension to serve Duran until October 26, 2001, with conditions regarding deposition timing.

Service of ProcessExtension of TimeProtective OrderDepositionFederal Rules of Civil ProcedureJurisdictionGood CausePrejudiceFlorida LawCivil Procedure
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Department of Environmental Protection v. New York City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) filed an Article 78 petition seeking to annul a determination by the New York City Civil Service Commission. The Commission had reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision which sustained misconduct charges against respondent John Daly for striking a co-worker and threatening him. DEP argued the Commission improperly reassessed witness credibility, violating its mandate under Civil Service Law § 76 (2). The court confirmed the Commission's determination, finding that despite an improper transfer under CPLR 7804 (g), the Commission's decision was not arbitrary given the contradictory testimony, thus dismissing the petition.

Administrative LawArticle 78Judicial ReviewCivil Service LawPublic Employee MisconductCredibility AssessmentAgency DeterminationAppellate CourtArbitrary and Capricious StandardDue Process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Harris v. American Protective Services of New York, Inc.

Raleigh L. Hams sued American Protective Services of New York, Inc. alleging race, sex, and disability discrimination, retaliation, sexual harassment, and defamation under Title VII and the ADA. The court, presided over by Chief Judge Larimer, granted in part and denied in part APS's motion to dismiss. Harris's claims for race, disability, and sexual harassment were dismissed with prejudice due to failure to exhaust administrative remedies or state a claim. His retaliation and defamation claims were dismissed with leave to replead. APS's motion to dismiss the disparate treatment sex discrimination claim was denied. All of Harris's motions to amend, vacate an arbitrator's decision, and for a preliminary injunction were denied.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIIADARace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRetaliationSexual HarassmentDefamationMotion to Dismiss
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 17, 1999

Wayburn v. Madison Land Ltd.

Plaintiffs Robert Wayburn and E.S. were victims of a violent crime (robbery, assault, and rape) in an office building. They, along with Doris McGarty, sued multiple defendants, including the building's managing agent, Rose Associates, and the security provider, Primary Security Services, alleging negligence. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to all defendants. On appeal, the decision was modified: summary judgment was denied for Rose Associates, and the complaint against them was reinstated. Rose's cross-claims against Primary Security Services were converted to third-party claims. The dismissal of direct claims against Primary Security Services and Rosenthal & Herman, P. C. was affirmed.

NegligenceSummary Judgment AppealForeseeability of CrimeLandlord LiabilityManaging Agent NegligenceSecurity BreachPremises SecurityDuty of CareReinstatement of ClaimsThird-Party Claims
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Volt Technical Services Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

Plaintiff Volt Technical Services Corp. applied for H-2 visas for nuclear start-up technicians, which the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) denied, asserting the need was permanent, not temporary. After the denial was affirmed on appeal, Volt filed suit, alleging the INS's decision was arbitrary and capricious. The court upheld the INS's interpretation of the Immigration and Nationality Act § 101(a)(15)(H)(ii), which requires the employer's need for services to be temporary, not just the individual assignments. Finding that Volt demonstrated a recurring need for such technicians over several years, the court granted the INS's motion for judgment on the pleadings and denied Volt's.

Immigration LawH-2 visasNonimmigrant WorkersTemporary EmploymentImmigration and Nationality ActAdministrative Procedures ActDeclaratory Judgment ActAgency InterpretationJudicial ReviewNuclear Industry
References
5
Showing 1-10 of 9,937 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