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

New York Racing Ass'n v. State of New York Racing & Wagering Board

The New York Racing Association (NYRA) filed a CPLR article 78 application seeking to exempt competitive bidding policy documents from disclosure under the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), citing Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d) regarding trade secrets and potential substantial competitive injury. NYRA challenged a determination by the State of New York Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB) that had partially denied this exemption for certain approved policy changes. The court, applying the Encore test, found that even a summarized release of these documents would constitute a disclosure of proprietary trade information. Such disclosure, especially to the press, was deemed likely to cause significant competitive disadvantage to NYRA, impacting its franchise renewal and bankruptcy reorganization efforts. Consequently, the court granted NYRA's application, vacating the NYSRWB's prior determination and ruling that the documents are exempt from FOIL disclosure.

FOILFreedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawTrade SecretsCompetitive BiddingProprietary InformationCommercial EnterpriseSubstantial InjuryRacing IndustryRegulatory Board
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 25014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2025

New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd. v. New York City Off. of Collective Bargaining

The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) initiated a special proceeding against the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB) and related boards. PERB alleged that OCB's ongoing implementation of its contract-bar rule, which restricts post-expiration-of-contract decertification, was not substantially equivalent to the state's Taylor Law. OCB moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion to dismiss PERB's declaratory judgment claim, finding it either a continuing violation or subject to a six-year statute of limitations that was not yet expired. However, the court dismissed PERB's accompanying Article 78 cause of action as untimely. Additionally, motions to intervene by several nonparties were denied, but their requests to appear as amici curiae were granted.

Public Employment Relations BoardCollective BargainingTaylor LawCivil Service LawDeclaratory JudgmentStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineContract Bar RuleDecertification PetitionNew York City Office of Collective Bargaining
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verizon New York Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission

Verizon New York Inc. commenced a special proceeding against the New York State Public Service Commission and other respondents. Verizon sought to overturn a determination allowing public disclosure of certain documents, which Verizon claimed were trade secrets or confidential commercial information, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The documents in question related to Verizon's network costs and its methods and procedures for its wireless service, Verizon Voice Link (WL). The court reviewed the Secretary's and RAO's determinations, which found some information to be trade secrets but still required a showing of 'substantial injury' for exemption. The court ruled that once information is deemed a trade secret under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d), no further showing of substantial competitive injury is required for exemption. Consequently, the court granted in part the petition, exempting specific cost information and several M&P documents from disclosure, while denying exemption for three M&P documents.

FOIL ExemptionTrade Secret ProtectionConfidential Commercial InformationPublic Officers Law § 87 (2) (d)Substantial Competitive InjuryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Determination ReviewCPLR Article 78Wireless ServicesCost Information Disclosure
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department

Petitioners, the New York Times Company and Jim Dwyer, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking the disclosure of records from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), related to the events of September 11, 2001. Their request included oral histories of FDNY personnel and radio communications. The FDNY denied parts of the request, citing exemptions for law enforcement purposes, intra-agency materials, and personal privacy. The court ruled that the FDNY failed to demonstrate the applicability of the law enforcement exemption. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of factual portions of the oral histories, the 911 tapes and transcripts of family members who waived privacy, and non-intra-agency parts of operator, dispatcher, and unit communications, while denying petitioners' request for attorneys' fees.

Freedom of Information LawFOILPublic RecordsSeptember 11World Trade CenterFDNYOral HistoriesRadio CommunicationsPrivacy ExemptionLaw Enforcement Exemption
References
14
Case No. Axelrod I, Axelrod II, Veit
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1985

Society of the New York Hospital v. Axelrod

This case concerns the Commissioner of Health of New York State's establishment of Medicaid, Blue Cross, workers' compensation, and no-fault insurance reimbursement rates for hospitals. In response to increased labor costs for hospitals affiliated with the League of Voluntary Hospitals, SHIF (Supplemental Hospital Index Factor) benefits were introduced to provide waivers based on actual increased labor costs. Eligibility for SHIF was determined by an "affordability" factor, utilizing a current ratio analysis where a ratio of current assets to liabilities less than 1:1 indicated eligibility. The Society of The New York Hospital and The New York Eye & Ear Infirmary were denied SHIF benefits due to their current ratios, while some other hospital groups with similar financial statuses received benefits. The Supreme Court initially found a rational basis for the rates but questioned the uniform application. The Appellate Division modified the decision, finding the application of eligibility tests to Hospital and Infirmary to be arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory, thereby violating equal protection clauses. The court granted summary judgment to Hospital and Infirmary, declaring the denial of SHIF benefits arbitrary and capricious, and remanded for an assessment of due benefits.

Reimbursement RatesMedicaidWorkers' CompensationNo-Fault InsurancePublic Health LawSHIF BenefitsAffordability FactorCurrent Ratio TestArbitrary and CapriciousEqual Protection
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York

Jose Cruz, a bus operator for the New York City Transit Authority (TA), was found to have color-blindness during a routine physical examination. A physician recommended a road test to assess his fitness, but the TA refused, asserting the test was non-medical and insufficient to evaluate his ability to meet required vision standards under Vehicle and Traffic Law and NYCRR regulations. Subsequently, the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100 (TWU) filed a grievance on Cruz's behalf, which the TA denied, leading to a request for binding arbitration. The TA then initiated a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable. The Supreme Court denied the TA's petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision that was ultimately affirmed by the appellate court, which found no statutory or public policy prohibitions against arbitrating the dispute under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementbus operatorcolor-blindnessvision requirementsroad testpublic sectorarbitrabilitygrievanceappellate decision
References
6
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

Buckley v. City of New York

This case addresses the continued applicability of the fellow-servant rule in New York. It consolidates two appeals: Buckley v City of New York, involving a police officer shot by a co-worker, and Lawrence v City of New York, where a firefighter was injured by a fellow firefighter. Both plaintiffs secured jury verdicts against the City based on vicarious liability, which the City challenged under the fellow-servant rule. The court reviewed the historical origins and rationales of the rule, noting its significant curtailment by workers' compensation legislation and prior judicial criticism. Ultimately, the court found that the fellow-servant rule no longer serves a valid purpose and imposes an unjust hardship, leading to its complete abolition in New York. The Appellate Division's orders affirming the judgments against the City were affirmed.

abolition of fellow-servant rulerespondeat superiorvicarious liabilityemployer liabilityco-employee negligencepolice officer injuryfirefighter injurycommon law developmentjudicial precedenttort law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 9,437 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