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

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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Adams v. City of New York

Plaintiffs, current and former correction officers, sued the City of New York alleging race and gender discrimination, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII, NYSHRL, NYCHRL, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The City moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on employment discrimination claims for all plaintiffs under Title VII, NYSHRL, and NYCHRL, finding that assignment to a rotating 'wheel' or undesirable permanent posts did not constitute an adverse employment action in the discrimination context. Summary judgment was also granted against O'Brien's retaliation claims, as her protected activity postdated the alleged retaliatory actions, and against Quick's standalone sexual harassment claim, which was deemed not severe enough to alter employment conditions. However, the court denied summary judgment on retaliation claims for Adams, Castleberry, Monche, and Quick, finding issues of fact regarding whether reassignments were retaliatory. Summary judgment was also denied for hostile work environment claims (general and Monche's individual sexual harassment claim) due to triable issues of fact regarding pervasive derogatory comments, discriminatory bathroom policies, and Supervisor Olivo's conduct towards Monche. Finally, summary judgment was denied on the Monell claim under § 1983, as there were triable issues regarding the EEO's corroboration policy leading to deliberate indifference to constitutional violations.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationSexual HarassmentRetaliation ClaimHostile Work EnvironmentSummary Judgment MotionMunicipal LiabilitySection 1983Monell Claim
References
45
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Thomas v. City of Troy

Adrian Thomas filed a civil rights action against City Defendants (City of Troy, Adam R. Mason, Ronald Fountain, Tim Colaneri) and County Defendants (County of Rensselaer, Dr. Michael Sikirica) alleging malicious prosecution, violation of fair trial rights, failure to intervene, and conspiracy. The claims arise from his conviction for his son's murder, based on an allegedly coerced confession and a fabricated autopsy report by Dr. Sikirica. His conviction was later overturned, and he was acquitted in a re-trial. The Court addressed three motions to dismiss, granting in part and denying in part for both sets of defendants regarding Plaintiff's claims. Specifically, Plaintiff's malicious prosecution and certain conspiracy claims survived, while fair trial, failure to intervene, and municipal liability claims were dismissed as untimely or for failing to state a claim. City Defendants' cross-claims against County Defendants for indemnification and contribution were also dismissed.

Civil RightsSection 1983Malicious ProsecutionFabricated EvidenceCoerced ConfessionAutopsy ReportMunicipal LiabilityQualified ImmunityAbsolute ImmunityMotion to Dismiss
References
79
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
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02101, 44 NY3d 45
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2025

Matter of Schulze v. City of Newburgh Fire Dept.

This case addresses whether the City of Newburgh Fire Department can be reimbursed from workers' compensation benefits for payments made to a disabled firefighter, Adam Schulze, under General Municipal Law § 207-a (2). Schulze, a retired firefighter with performance of duty (POD) disability retirement, received supplemental payments from the City and workers' compensation awards. The City sought reimbursement, arguing its General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments constituted "salary or wages" or "payments to an employee in like manner as wages" under Workers' Compensation Law §§ 30 (2) or 25 (4) (a). The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of reimbursement, holding that General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments are pension supplements, not wages, and are made to retired individuals, not employees. The Court clarified that the proper statutory mechanism for the employer to reduce duplicative benefits is General Municipal Law § 207-a (4-a), which allows for the reduction of future General Municipal Law § 207-a (2) payments by the amount of workers' compensation awards.

Workers' CompensationFirefighter DisabilityGeneral Municipal LawRetirement BenefitsReimbursementPension SupplementsStatutory InterpretationNew York State LawCourt of AppealsPublic Employment
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deneen v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an individual whose union entered into a wage deferral agreement with the City of New York in 1975, sued the city for unpaid wages in Small Claims Court after five years of non-payment. The city sought dismissal, citing the plaintiff's failure to exhaust arbitration remedies and the indefinite suspension of payment due to ambiguities in the agreement. The court distinguished a prior Appellate Term reversal in Albert v City of New York by highlighting the union's bad faith in creating the ambiguous contract and its refusal to represent the plaintiff. The opinion emphasized that the city's delay was unconscionable and that its reliance on arbitration as a defense was procedurally improper. Ultimately, the court denied the city's motion and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Wage DeferralUnion Breach of Fiduciary DutyArbitration ExhaustionSummary JudgmentSmall Claims CourtContract AmbiguityUnpaid WagesDue ProcessCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. City of Buffalo

The United States moved to modify a 1979 remedial hiring decree against the City of Buffalo's police and fire departments. This decree, issued after findings of unlawful discrimination against blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, and women, required 50% of entry-level appointments to be from qualified minority applicants. The government argued that Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts mandated an end to preferential hiring. Chief Judge Curtin denied the motion, citing the Second Circuit's decision in EEOC v. Local 638, which held that Stotts does not prohibit race-conscious relief in this context. The court emphasized that the Buffalo decree is temporary, applies only to qualified candidates, and does not involve the displacement of existing employees, distinguishing it from the Stotts case. The hiring goals will end when the City proves its selection procedures are valid.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationAffirmative ActionHiring DecreeRemedial OrderTitle VIISeniority RightsJudicial ReviewConsent DecreePublic Employment
References
8
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 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. 2017 NY Slip Op 08897 [158 AD3d 30]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

De'L. A. v. City of New York

The case, De'L. A. v City of New York, concerns an infant foster child who suffered brain injury from abuse by an unapproved teenage caretaker. The child's biological and adoptive mothers sued the City of New York, foster mother Milcia Pineda, and Jewish Child Care Association (JCCA). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the City and Pineda but denied JCCA's motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to JCCA, finding that questions of fact remained regarding JCCA's negligence in placing the child and monitoring the foster home, and whether this negligence was a proximate cause of the injury, despite the intervening act of abuse. The court emphasized that JCCA's alleged violations of regulations and policies made the harm foreseeable.

Foster Care NegligenceChild Abuse LiabilityProximate CauseIntervening Act DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewAgency OversightChild Welfare RegulationsForeseeability of HarmBrain Injury Case
References
18
Showing 1-10 of 22,069 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