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. 2025 NY Slip Op 04576 [241 AD3d 563]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. American Home Assur. Co.

The New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust (NYBOCT), a self-insured entity, brought an action against its excess-of-loss insurer, American Home Assurance Co., alleging breach of contract and seeking declaratory relief. This dispute arose after American Home denied coverage for a workers' compensation claim due to untimely notice. The Supreme Court granted American Home's motion to dismiss the complaint as time-barred, which NYBOCT appealed. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, ruling that the six-year statute of limitations for breach of contract began when American Home disclaimed coverage on May 18, 2012, making NYBOCT's 2020 lawsuit untimely. The court rejected arguments related to the continuing-wrong doctrine and estoppel.

Limitation of ActionsBreach of ContractInsurance ContractDisclaimer of CoverageStatute of LimitationsWorkers' CompensationExcess-of-Loss PolicySelf-Insured TrustUntimely NoticeAppellate Review
References
29
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 04577
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 06, 2025

New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust v. Arthur J. Gallagher & Co.

The plaintiff, New York Bus Operators Compensation Trust (NYBOCT), appealed an order that denied its motion to amend the complaint to add individual defendants and new causes of action. NYBOCT had originally sued its insurance broker and third-party administrators for alleged mishandling of a workers' compensation claim, which resulted in a denial of excess coverage. The Supreme Court had previously dismissed all but the breach of contract claims. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of the motion to amend, citing the plaintiff's extended delay, lack of reasonable excuse, the prejudice to the defendants, and the determination that the proposed amendments were patently devoid of merit.

Insurance BrokerThird-Party AdministratorBreach of ContractFiduciary DutyPleading AmendmentFaithless Agent DoctrineWorkers' CompensationExcess CoverageAppellate ReviewDelay
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Andre v. City of New York

This case addresses two related actions concerning the proposed transfer of privately-owned bus company operations to the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and the transfer of claims management to AIG Claim Services, Inc. The plaintiffs, including nonunion employees and the bus companies, sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the transfer without compliance with employee protective arrangements established by a 1975 operating agreement and subsequent certifications. The court denied motions by the City of New York and the MTA to dismiss the complaints, finding that the plaintiffs had standing and stated valid causes of action. Furthermore, the court granted the plaintiffs' request for a preliminary injunction, enjoining the proposed takeover until a determination by the Department of Labor and ordering the immediate restoration of claims management work to the bus companies, citing violations of employee protection agreements and procurement laws.

Employee Protective ArrangementsBus TransportationPublic ProcurementPreliminary InjunctionThird-Party BeneficiaryStanding to SueGovernment ContractsUrban Mass Transportation ActCollective Bargaining RightsClaims Management Transfer
References
18
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01980, 525411
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Portlette v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

Claimant Oneshiua Portlette, a bus operator, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. Initially, her employer, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, paid benefits for injuries Portlette reported sustained in a bus accident. However, the employer later suspended payments and raised fraud concerns after video evidence contradicted Portlette's account of the incident and her injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board found that Portlette failed to prove a causally-related injury and made material misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's consideration of the employer's evidence despite a lack of timely notice of controversy, and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions which supported that no causally-related injury occurred.

Workers' CompensationCausationFraudVideo EvidenceMedical OpinionNotice of ControversyPreclusionAppellate ReviewBus OperatorInjury Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority & Gholson

Willie Gholson, a bus operator for Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, sought no-fault benefits after being attacked by a passenger. The Authority moved to stay arbitration, arguing that the incident was not related to the "use or operation" of the bus as defined by the Insurance Law. Gholson contended his injury, resulting from refusing to open the door at a non-bus stop, was part of his operation. The court, acknowledging the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the injuries were due to employment activity, ultimately ruled that the no-fault law was intended for motor vehicle accidents involving physical contact between vehicles or persons, not assaults within a vehicle. Therefore, the court granted the Authority's motion to permanently stay arbitration.

No-fault benefitsBus operatorPassenger assaultArbitration stayInsurance LawMotor vehicle accidentUse or operationWorkers' CompensationScope of employmentJudicial interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fontus v. D & J School Bus

Carole Fontus was allegedly injured after being struck by a school bus owned by D & J School Bus and operated by DT Transportation, Inc., with Pasquale Amodei as the driver. Fontus and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants raised a fifth affirmative defense, claiming Fontus and Amodei were coemployees under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), thus barring the action. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike this defense. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike the fifth affirmative defense, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the employment relationship between the parties.

Personal InjurySchool Bus AccidentCo-employmentWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeEmployment RelationshipMotor Vehicle Accident
References
2
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02521 [227 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

Dolores v. Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc.

Cleotilde Dolores, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries when her school bus was struck from the rear by another school bus owned by Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc., and driven by Samuel Bercy. She subsequently filed a personal injury action against the defendants. The defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the parties shared a special employment relationship with nonparty Logan Bus Payroll Systems, Inc., which would invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law and bar the action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to establish the existence of such a special employment relationship.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Employment RelationshipEmployer LiabilityBus AccidentRear-End CollisionAppellate PracticePrima Facie BurdenKings County
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06564 [132 AD3d 149]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Matter of Phillips v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

This case concerns the termination of bus driver Tony Aiken by the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Transit Authority) for sexual harassment. Aiken, also a union official, was on union-paid release time when the termination was imposed. His union challenged the discipline, arguing the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) protected employees on release time from disciplinary action. An arbitrator sided with the union, ordering Aiken's reinstatement. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. However, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA and the resulting reinstatement violated a well-defined public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the employer's legal obligation under Title VII and New York Human Rights Laws to prevent and address sexual harassment, and concluded that upholding the award would impede the Transit Authority's ability to fulfill this duty and deter future misconduct.

Sexual harassmentEmployment terminationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration awardPublic policy exceptionReinstatementUnion-paid release timeWorkplace disciplineTitle VIINew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cividanes v. City of New York

The case concerns a plaintiff who sued the City of New York and two transit authorities for negligence after sustaining an ankle injury from a pothole while alighting a bus. The claim against the City was dismissed due to lack of prior written notice, while the claim against the authorities alleged a breach of duty to provide a safe disembarking location. The dissenting opinion argues that the No-Fault Insurance Law should apply, as the injury arose from the use or operation of a motor vehicle—specifically, the bus driver's negligent positioning. This contrasts with the majority's decision, which affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the No-Fault Law inapplicable because the injury did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. The dissent cites *Manuel v New York City Tr. Auth.* as relevant precedent, distinguishing it from *Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.*

NegligenceNo-Fault Insurance LawMotor Vehicle OperationPothole InjuryBus AccidentProximate CauseDisembarking SafetyDuty of CareAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 1,335 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