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

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. 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. 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
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00957 [213 AD3d 560]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of O'Reilly v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves an appeal by tenured public school teachers, Christine O'Reilly, Lucia Jennifer Lanzer, Ingrid Romero, and Elizabeth Loiacono, against the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York. They challenged an arbitration award, known as the Impact Award, which established procedures for religious and medical exemptions to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate, negotiated by their union, the United Federation of Teachers (UFT), and the Department of Education (DOE). The petitioners were placed on leave without pay for failing to comply with the vaccine mandate. The court affirmed the dismissal of their CPLR articles 75 and 78 petitions. It found that the teachers lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award and failed to join UFT as a necessary party. Additionally, the court ruled that placement on leave for non-compliance with a condition of employment, such as vaccination, is not a disciplinary action, making Education Law §§ 3020 and 3020-a inapplicable. The court also concluded that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, given the opportunities provided for compliance or exemptions. A dissenting opinion argued that a new, nonstatutory condition of employment cannot be imposed on tenured teachers without legislative action, and they are entitled to due process under Education Law § 3020-a before being placed on unpaid leave or dismissed.

Tenured TeachersCOVID-19 Vaccine MandateArbitration AwardLeave Without PayDue Process RightsEmployment ConditionsCollective BargainingUnion RepresentationAppellate ReviewPublic Education Employees
References
25
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In Re the Arbitration Between Johnson City Professional Firefighters Local 921 & Village of Johnson City

This case addresses whether a 'no-layoff' clause in a collective bargaining agreement (CBA) between the Village of Johnson City and its firefighter union was subject to arbitration. The Village abolished six firefighter positions citing budgetary necessity, leading the Johnson City Professional Fire Fighters, Local 921 IAFF, to file a grievance and seek to compel arbitration. The Court of Appeals reversed lower court decisions that had compelled arbitration. The court held that the no-layoff clause was not arbitrable because it failed to explicitly, unambiguously, and comprehensively protect against job abolition due to budgetary reasons. The term 'layoff' was deemed ambiguous and undefined within the CBA, rendering the dispute non-arbitrable on public policy grounds, thereby granting the Village's application to stay arbitration.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementNo-Layoff ClausePublic PolicyBudgetary StringenciesJob SecurityMunicipal EmploymentContract InterpretationUnion GrievanceFirefighters
References
5
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
Showing 1-10 of 3,387 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