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 06627
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2018

Mack v. City of New York

Plaintiff Ivy J. Mack, a secretary for the New York County District Attorney, was injured in a trip and fall incident at work, for which she received Workers' Compensation benefits paid by the City of New York. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendants' motion to amend their answer to assert a Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that employees of the District Attorney's office are considered employees of the City for Workers' Compensation purposes. This makes the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law applicable, thus barring the plaintiff's lawsuit.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityTrip and FallGovernment EmploymentAffirmative DefenseLeave to AmendMunicipal LiabilityDistrict Attorney's OfficePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between City of Oswego & Oswego City Firefighters Ass'n, Local 2707

The City of Oswego appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirming the award in favor of the Oswego City Firefighters Association, Local 2707. The City contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by contravening the Retirement and Social Security Law and Civil Service Law regarding firefighter retirement contributions. The central issue was whether an expired collective bargaining agreement remained in effect under the Triborough doctrine, thereby obligating the City to pay firefighter contributions to the New York State Police and Fireman’s Retirement System for newly hired employees. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the arbitration award was not contrary to statutes or public policy. It held that the Triborough doctrine maintained the terms of the expired agreement until a new one was negotiated, thus the Section 8 exception applied to the firefighters.

ArbitrationPublic EmployerCollective Bargaining AgreementRetirement BenefitsCivil Service LawRetirement and Social Security LawTriborough DoctrineGrievanceStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06241 [210 AD3d 765]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2022

Matter of City of Yonkers v. Police Benevolent Assn. of the City of Yonkers

The City of Yonkers appealed an order that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of the Police Benevolent Association of the City of Yonkers. The dispute stemmed from the City's unilateral reduction of police officer overtime hours, which violated an oral agreement to maintain a 60-hour overtime cap. The Supreme Court granted the respondent's motion to confirm the arbitration award, which directed the City to rescind the 2018 policy and restore the 2011 policy. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the arbitration award did not violate strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's power, as it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardOvertime PolicyPublic Employment Relations BoardImproper Practice ChargeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationVacaturConfirmation of AwardMunicipal Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Fink v. City of New York

Dennis H. Fink, a retired fire marshal, successfully sued the City of New York and the Fire Department under USERRA and the ADA for discrimination and retaliation. After prevailing on all claims, Fink accepted a remittitur on emotional damages. Subsequently, Fink moved for attorneys' fees. The court, presided over by District Judge Trager, calculated the "lodestar" fee by adjusting counsel's proposed hourly rates and reducing certain billed hours deemed excessive, particularly for routine tasks and the fee application itself. The court denied Fink's request for a 75% multiplier, referencing Supreme Court decisions that disallow such enhancements based on litigation risk or case complexity in fee-shifting statutes. Additionally, several claimed expenses, including Westlaw research and office supplies, were disallowed. Ultimately, Fink was awarded $145,769.47 in attorneys’ fees and expenses.

USERRAADAAttorneys' FeesLodestar MethodFee-Shifting StatutesContingency FeesRemittiturEmployment DiscriminationMilitary Service DiscriminationDisability Discrimination
References
36
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04083
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of King v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves Charmaine King and other charter school petitioners seeking to compel the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York to provide COVID-19 screening tests to charter school students and staff, mirroring services offered to public school students. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition broadly, directing respondents to administer tests to New York City-resident children attending petitioners' charter schools to the same extent as public schools, and also to staff. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this judgment, affirming that Education Law § 912 mandates the provision of health screening tests, including COVID-19 tests, to resident children attending non-public schools on the same terms as public schools. However, the appellate court specifically limited the directive to New York City-resident children attending the petitioners' charter schools, excluding staff and non-party schools, as the statute only covers children, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision.

COVID-19 testingCharter schoolsPublic schoolsEducation Law § 912Health and Welfare ServicesEstablishment ClauseAppellate DivisionSchool districtsJudicial reviewMandate
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 00128 [157 AD3d 656]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2018

DeBlasi v. City of New York

In this action, Joseph DeBlasi and his wife sought damages for personal injuries after Mr. DeBlasi tripped on a cracked sidewalk. They sued the City of New York, property owner John S. Gannone, and contractor Winrock Plumbing, Inc. After a $35,000 settlement with the City was agreed upon by attorneys, the plaintiffs attempted to renege due to a worker's compensation lien, leading the City to move for enforcement. The Supreme Court initially denied the City's motion and granted summary judgment dismissing the complaint against Gannone and Winrock. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, modified the order, granting the City's motion to enforce the settlement, and affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against Gannone and Winrock.

Personal InjurySidewalk DefectTrip and FallPremises LiabilityMunicipal LiabilityProperty Owner ExemptionSummary Judgment MotionStipulation of Settlement EnforcementAppellate ReviewContractor Liability
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Personnel Director challenged the City Civil Service Commission's decision to grant veterans' preference credits to police officers who performed a few hours of active duty during a 1970 postal strike. The Court of Appeals found that the Personnel Director had standing to sue, rejecting the argument of an intra-agency dispute due to the Director's policy-making and enforcement authority over civil service laws. On the merits, the Court reversed the Commission's decision, holding that veterans' credits are intended for individuals whose full-time military service significantly disrupted their civilian lives, a condition not met by the police officers' brief service. The court clarified that mere literal fulfillment of "time of war" and "member of the armed forces" definitions is insufficient without demonstrable sacrifice. Therefore, the orders awarding the preference credits were annulled, emphasizing the restrictive interpretation of such preferences in competitive civil service systems.

Veterans' preference creditsCivil Service LawStanding to sueArticle 78 proceedingMunicipal civil service commissionPersonnel DirectorJudicial review of administrative decisionsArmed Forces reservistsActive dutyConstitutional interpretation
References
17
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06178
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 10, 2021

Mutual Aid Assn. of the Paid Fire Dept. of the City of Yonkers, N.Y., Inc. v. City of Yonkers

The plaintiff, a union representing firefighters in Yonkers, initiated an action for declaratory and injunctive relief against the City of Yonkers and other entities regarding the construction of a new firehouse for the Ridge Hill development. The plaintiff contended that the City defendants were in violation of SEQRA and other legal duties for failing to construct the firehouse. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motions to dismiss, interpreting the SEQRA documents as mandating the firehouse. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The Appellate Division found that the SEQRA documents and City Council resolutions did not unambiguously require the construction of a new firehouse, but rather specified other mitigation measures. The court remitted the matter to the Supreme Court for the entry of a judgment declaring in favor of the defendants.

State Environmental Quality Review ActSEQRADeclaratory Judgment ActionInjunctive ReliefMunicipal LawLand Use DevelopmentZoning BoardFire Protection ServicesMixed-Use DevelopmentAppellate Procedure
References
14
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01979
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2024

Matter of Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of New York v. McKeever

The Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York (BOE) initiated disciplinary proceedings against Bishme Allah, a tenured social worker, based on allegations of inappropriate touching of a student. A Hearing Officer dismissed all charges, prompting BOE to petition the Supreme Court to vacate the arbitration decision. The Supreme Court granted BOE's petition. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment, finding that the Hearing Officer's award was irrational and unsupported by adequate evidence. The Appellate Division determined that the Hearing Officer erred in finding a due process violation due to the student's absence and improperly disregarded hearsay evidence and a Family Court order establishing sexual abuse.

arbitration award vacaturdisciplinary proceedingseducation lawdue processhearsay evidencejudicial review of arbitrationteacher misconductchild sexual abuse allegationsadministrative hearingappellate review
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 6,204 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