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. 650113/13; Appeal No. 1742; Case No. 2021-00579
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2024

Cooney v. City of N.Y. Dept. of Sanitation

Plaintiff Robert Cooney appealed an order granting summary judgment to defendants, City of New York Department of Sanitation (DSNY), in a case alleging discriminatory medical disqualification for a sanitation worker position due to psoriasis. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that DSNY's finding was not discriminatory under New York State and City Human Rights Laws. Defendants demonstrated that no reasonable accommodation would enable Cooney to perform the job duties safely and effectively. DSNY engaged in an interactive dialogue, and its medical director rejected proposed accommodations, explaining that the plaintiff's chronic psoriasis would be exacerbated by the work environment, rendering treatment ineffective and making him vulnerable to infection. The court found that defendants were entitled to rely on their medical director's opinion, despite a conflicting opinion from plaintiff's treating physician.

Employment DiscriminationPsoriasisReasonable AccommodationHuman Rights LawMedical DisqualificationSanitation WorkerSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewInteractive DialogueDisability Rights
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03320 [239 AD3d 635]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 04, 2025

Montanino v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation

The plaintiff, Daniel Montanino, appealed an order that dismissed his defamation complaint against the New York City Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and the City of New York. Montanino alleged that an anonymous DSNY employee posted a false statement on DSNY's internal network claiming he leaked civil service exam answers, and this statement was then disseminated throughout the department. The City defendants moved to dismiss, arguing immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA) and failure to meet CPLR 3016 (a) pleading requirements for defamation. The Supreme Court granted the motion, finding the City defendants immune under the CDA as a provider of an interactive computer service and not the content provider, and that Montanino failed to specify details regarding the alleged subsequent dissemination of the defamatory statement. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision.

DefamationCommunications Decency ActCDA immunityInteractive computer serviceLibel and slanderPleading sufficiencyAnonymous postInternal communication networkCivil service examinationAppellate review
References
17
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 05837 [142 AD3d 463]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2016

Matter of Rivera v. New York City Dept. of Sanitation

Carlos Rivera's probationary employment as a sanitation worker was terminated by the New York City Department of Sanitation. Rivera petitioned to annul this determination, and the Supreme Court granted his petition due to the Department's purported default, denying the Department's motion to vacate. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this judgment, finding that the Department's 'law office failure' was a reasonable excuse for default. The Court also determined that the Department demonstrated a meritorious defense, as Rivera, a probationary employee, was terminated for legitimate reasons, including his arrest for DWI and subsequent license suspension/revocation. Consequently, the Appellate Division vacated the default judgment, denied Rivera's petition, and dismissed the proceeding.

Probationary EmploymentTermination of EmploymentDefault JudgmentMotion to VacateLaw Office FailureMeritorious DefenseCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewDWI ArrestDriver's License Revocation
References
8
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 03465 [127 AD3d 629]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 28, 2015

Cooney v. City of New York Department of Sanitation

The case involves Robert Cooney's claim of disability-based discrimination against the City of New York Department of Sanitation (DOS). Cooney alleged that DOS refused to hire him as a sanitation worker solely due to his psoriasis condition on his hands, despite his qualifications. The Supreme Court initially dismissed Cooney's complaint for failing to state a cause of action. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, finding that the complaint adequately pleaded a cause of action under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, noting that gloves could serve as a reasonable accommodation. The court further determined that whether DOS was justified in disqualifying Cooney could not be resolved from the complaint alone, and highlighted that the motion to dismiss was not converted to a motion for summary judgment.

Disability discriminationHuman Rights LawPsoriasisRefusal to hireReasonable accommodationMotion to dismissSummary judgment conversionCPLR 3211(a)(7)New York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gavigan v. City of New York

A sanitation worker was injured after sustaining an electric shock from a lamppost with an exposed copper wire. The lamppost was under a maintenance contract between the City of New York and Petrocelli. The motion court properly denied the City's motion to dismiss, as triable issues of fact exist regarding whether the City had prior written notice of the defect. Evidence included complaints received by Petrocelli from the City about unauthorized access to the lamppost's wiring and malfunctioning traffic lights. Furthermore, Petrocelli's motion to dismiss was also denied, as there are triable issues concerning its performance of contractual inspection duties and whether its failure contributed to the plaintiff's injury.

Electric ShockLamppost DefectSanitation Worker InjuryMunicipal NegligenceContractual LiabilityDuty to InspectNotice of DefectTriable Issues of FactMotion DenialAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cravotta v. New York City Employees' Retirement System

The petitioner, a New York City sanitation worker, sustained a knee injury after allegedly slipping on a sanitation truck step contaminated by a slippery substance from a dump site. His application for accidental disability retirement benefits from the New York City Employees’ Retirement System (NYCERS) was denied, as his injury was not deemed an "accident" under Retirement and Social Security Law § 605-b. The petitioner challenged this determination, but both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the denial. The courts found that the injury occurred during routine duties and was not so extraordinary or unexpected as to constitute an accidental injury.

Accidental disabilityRetirement benefitsSanitation workerKnee injurySlipping accidentRoutine dutiesNYCERSAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAnnulment petition
References
7
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03576
Regular Panel Decision
May 17, 2018

Matter of Weinstein (City of New York Dept. of Citywide Admin. Servs.--Commr. of Labor)

Claimant Fred Weinstein, a sanitation worker for the City of New York, was terminated in September 2015 for providing false information on his employment application regarding prior felony and misdemeanor convictions. Initially, the Department of Labor denied his unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. However, an Administrative Law Judge reversed this decision, which was then affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, concluding that the employer's delay in taking action negated the disqualifying misconduct. The Appellate Division, Third Department, reversed the Board's decision, holding that the employer's delay should not have been a factor in determining misconduct. The court found that substantial evidence did not support the Board's decision to award benefits and remitted the matter for further proceedings.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment TerminationMisconductFalse ApplicationCriminal ConvictionsEmployer DelayAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAdministrative Decision Reversal
References
5
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. 2016 NY Slip Op 06063 [142 AD3d 1050]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2016

Kaplan v. New York City Dept. of Health & Mental Hygiene

Constance Kaplan sued the New York City Department of Health and Mental Hygiene alleging sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge under the New York State Human Rights Law and the New York City Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court, Kings County, dismissed several of Kaplan's causes of action. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed the Supreme Court's order. The appellate court held that Kaplan had sufficiently stated causes of action for sexual harassment and retaliatory discharge, and that the defendants' motion to dismiss should have been denied. The court clarified that the burden to show petty slight or trivial inconvenience rests with the defendants as an affirmative defense, and pre-answer dismissal motions only address the adequacy of pleading.

Sexual harassmentRetaliatory dischargeHuman Rights LawExecutive LawAdministrative CodeMotion to dismissCPLR 3211 (a) (7)CPLR 3211 (a) (8)Appellate reviewPleading adequacy
References
12
Showing 1-10 of 3,622 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