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. 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank & File Committee ex rel. Simone v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The MTA Bus Non-Union Employees Rank and File Committee, along with fourteen individual plaintiffs, brought an action against the Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) and MTA Bus Company (MTA Bus) concerning pension benefits. Plaintiffs asserted claims including violations of the Equal Protection Clauses of the United States and New York State Constitutions, two distinct breaches of contract, a violation of Section 115 of the New York Civil Services Law, and negligent misrepresentation. The court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment on all claims and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for summary judgment. The court found that the pension benefit classifications had a rational basis, the contract claims were defeated by unambiguous plan documents, the Civil Services Law claim lacked jurisdictional basis, and the negligent misrepresentation claim was invalid as it was based on future promises.

Equal Protection ClauseRational Basis ReviewSummary JudgmentPension BenefitsBreach of ContractMTA Bus CompanyMetropolitan Transportation AuthorityNon-Union EmployeesNew York Civil Service LawNegligent Misrepresentation
References
24
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 01869 [181 AD3d 1113]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Perry v. All Am. Sch. Bus Corp.

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Diane Perry, a school bus attendant, sustained multiple injuries when she was struck by a motor vehicle while waiting for her assigned bus. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found that her injuries arose from an accident in the course of her employment and made awards. The employer and its carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied because they failed to completely answer question 15 on the RB-89 form, which required specifying the objection and when it was interposed, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) and (2) (ii). The Board upheld this denial, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both the Board's decision and amended decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's enforcement of its procedural rules.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAdministrative ReviewApplication DenialRegulatory ComplianceAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeScope of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentInjury CompensationBoard Discretion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of Cappellino v. Baumann & Sons Bus Company

John Cappellino, a bus driver for Baumann & Sons Bus Company, died from a fatal heart attack in July 2000. His wife filed a claim for death benefits under the Workers’ Compensation Law. The employer failed to file a timely notice of controversy (C-7) as required by Workers’ Compensation Law § 25 (2) (b), which should have barred them from disputing causation. Despite this, a physician for the employer testified that the death was not work-related. The Workers’ Compensation Board and Appellate Division relied on this testimony to deny benefits. The court reversed the Appellate Division's order, finding that the employer's physician's testimony should have been precluded due to the untimely filing, and remitted the case for further proceedings to determine causation without considering the employer's improperly admitted evidence.

Workers' CompensationUntimely FilingNotice of ControversyCausal RelationshipPreclusion of EvidenceHeart AttackDeath BenefitsEmployer LiabilityAppellate ReviewRemittal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Defalco v. Mta Bus Co.

Plaintiffs Anthony Defalco and Eric Trantel sued Detective Brian Longaro, Supervisor Francis Bristow, and MTA Bus Company under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for false arrest, malicious prosecution, and denial of due process, stemming from their arrest for bus battery theft and subsequent employment suspension. The Court granted summary judgment for Defendants. It found Bristow was not acting under color of state law, thus dismissing claims against him. For Longaro, the Court determined there was probable cause for arrest based on Bristow's eyewitness accounts, especially after another suspect confessed, negating the false arrest and malicious prosecution claims. Finally, the Court struck the due process claim for insufficient pleading, and alternatively found that even if properly pled, it would fail as prompt post-suspension hearings were offered to plaintiffs, satisfying due process requirements given the governmental interest.

False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionDue ProcessSummary JudgmentSection 1983State ActionProbable CauseEmployment SuspensionMTA Bus CompanyPolice Misconduct
References
66
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Logan Bus Co. v. Discover Property & Casualty Insurance

The plaintiff, Logan Bus Company, Inc., initiated a declaratory judgment action against Discover Property & Casualty Insurance Company to establish Discover's obligation to defend and indemnify Logan in an underlying lawsuit. The underlying action involved a sexual assault perpetrated by a student on another student on a bus owned by Logan, allegedly due to inadequate supervision. Logan appealed two orders from the Supreme Court, Queens County: one denying its motion for summary judgment for coverage and another granting Discover's motion to declare no obligation and dismiss the complaint. The appellate court affirmed both lower court orders, concluding that the "abuse or molestation" endorsement in Logan's insurance policy with Discover explicitly limited coverage to acts committed by "employees" or "volunteer workers." Since the alleged incident was perpetrated by a student, Logan failed to demonstrate a prima facie entitlement to coverage, leading to the affirmation of Discover's non-obligation to defend or indemnify.

Declaratory JudgmentInsurance Policy InterpretationCoverage DisputeAbuse or Molestation EndorsementDuty to DefendDuty to IndemnifySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewAutomobile InsuranceStudent Assault
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

LIN Television Corp. v. National Ass'n of Broadcast Employees & Technicians—Communications Workers

Plaintiff LIN Television Corporation sought to vacate a labor arbitration award that reinstated employee Timothy Flynn after his termination for making threats. Defendants, National Association of Broadcast Employees and Technicians—Communications Workers of America, counter-claimed to enforce the award. The arbitration found no "just cause" for termination, converting it to a suspension and mandating a positive psychiatric evaluation for Flynn's return. The U.S. District Court, reviewing cross-motions for summary judgment, confirmed the arbitration award. The court ruled that the award drew its essence from the collective bargaining agreement and did not violate public policy regarding workplace safety, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the defendants' motion.

Labor DisputeArbitration AwardVacaturEnforcementWorkplace SafetyCollective Bargaining AgreementJust CauseEmployee TerminationMental Health EvaluationFederal Court Review
References
26
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 28, 2002

Postma v. STC Bus Transportation Corp.

Freddy Postma, an employee of Selby Transportation Corp., was tragically killed by a bus driven by fellow employee Miguel Torres. His wife, individually and as administratrix of his estate, subsequently filed an action for personal injuries and wrongful death against multiple defendants, including STC Bus Transportation Corp., the bus owner. STC Bus cross-moved for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of the complaint and all cross claims against it, which the Supreme Court denied. On appeal, the court modified the lower court's order, granting STC Bus's cross-motion for summary judgment. The appellate court concluded that Torres, Selby Transportation, and STC Bus were immune from suit under the exclusive remedy provision of the Workers' Compensation Law, and STC Bus was also not liable for negligent hiring.

Personal InjuryWrongful DeathSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawExclusive RemedyEmployer ImmunityVehicle OwnershipNegligent HiringAppellate ReviewKings County
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 380 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