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. Docket # 7
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. v. Union City Contractors, Inc.

This case involves a breach of contract claim by Empire Enterprises JKB, Inc. against Union City Contractors, Inc. for unpaid debris removal services, and a Miller Act claim against Union City's sureties, Nova Casualty Company and Nova American Groups, Inc. After a bench trial in January 2008, Union City filed for bankruptcy, leading to an automatic stay on claims against them. The court, however, proceeded with Empire's Miller Act claim against Nova. The primary dispute concerned the quantity of debris removed, with Empire claiming 11,470 cubic yards. The court found Empire's evidence credible and rejected Nova's fraud defense, ultimately granting judgment in favor of Empire against Nova for $84,653.63, plus prejudgment interest.

Miller Act claimPayment bondBreach of contractSurety liabilityFederal public works projectDebris removalCubic yardage disputePrejudgment interestAttorney's fees deniedFraud affirmative defense
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining

This case concerns an appeal regarding the New York City Fire Department's "zero tolerance" policy, which mandates automatic termination for EMS employees who fail or refuse drug tests. Unions representing these employees argued that this policy should be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining and a lower court ruled against the unions, asserting that the policy falls under management's disciplinary rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that disciplinary actions for EMS personnel are the sole province of the Fire Commissioner under the New York City Charter, and that deterring illegal drug use by EMS workers is critical to public safety and the FDNY's core mission.

Public SafetyEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Drug Testing PolicyZero ToleranceCollective BargainingMandatory BargainingNew York City Fire Department (FDNY)Fire CommissionerDisciplinary AuthorityNew York City Charter
References
12
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 06264
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Matter of Plumbers Local Union No. 1 v. New York City Dept. of Bldgs.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a Supreme Court decision dismissing a petition filed by Plumbers Local Union No. 1 and its business manager. The Union sought mandamus and declaratory relief to compel the New York City Department of Buildings (DOB) to enforce gas, plumbing, and welding worker qualifications. The court found that the Union lacked standing, failing to demonstrate special damages different from the general community or a sufficient nexus to qualify for the public interest exception in mandamus proceedings. Consequently, the appellate court concluded that the Union's arguments were unavailing.

StandingMandamusDeclaratory ReliefPublic Interest ExceptionGas Safety RegulationsPlumbing QualificationsWeldersAdministrative CodeFuel Gas CodeNew York City Department of Buildings
References
3
Case No. 02 Civ. 7659(SAS)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2004

TRANSPORT WORKERS UNION OF AMERICA, LOCAL 100 v. NYC Transit Auth.

This case involves a dispute between several labor unions and the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and its subsidiary regarding the legality of NYCTA's sick leave policy under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The unions challenged the policy's medical inquiry requirements, arguing they violated ADA provisions against inquiries that may reveal a disability. The NYCTA justified its policy by citing the need to curb sick leave abuse and ensure workplace and public safety. The court applied the framework established in Conroy v. New York State Department of Correctional Services. It found that curbing sick leave abuse was a legitimate business necessity but only justified the policy for employees on a narrowly-defined "sick leave control list." The court also determined that ensuring safety was a vital business necessity, justifying the policy for safety-sensitive employees, specifically bus operators, but required further factual development for other employee groups. Ultimately, the court issued a declaratory judgment, clarifying the permissible scope of the policy's medical inquiries and rejecting the Authority's defenses of unclean hands and laches.

ADA ComplianceSick Leave PolicyMedical InquiryEmployment DiscriminationBusiness Necessity DefenseWorkplace SafetyPublic SafetyLabor Union LitigationCollective BargainingBus Operator
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2004

District Council 37 v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment affirming a determination by the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York. The petitioner public employee organizations (District Council 37 and Communications Workers of America) sought to annul the Board's decision regarding the City's unilateral implementation of a merit pay program for certain employees in the Human Resources Administration (JOS titles). The unions alleged the City violated the New York City Collective Bargaining Law by implementing the program without proper collective bargaining during a representation proceeding. The Board found the City had violated the NYC-CBL but denied the unions' request to compel the City to implement a similar merit pay program for non-JOS titles, citing inconsistency with its prior cease and desist order. The Supreme Court confirmed the Board's decision, and this judgment affirms that decision, finding the Board's actions to be reasonable and consistent with its statutory interpretation and that no new arguments warranted a different outcome.

Collective BargainingMerit Pay ProgramUnilateral ImplementationImproper PracticePublic Employee OrganizationRepresentation ProceedingStatus QuoAdministrative ReviewLabor DisputeAffirmation of Judgment
References
10
Case No. 2012-385
Regular Panel Decision
May 31, 2012

Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Transport Workers Union of Am., Local 100

This document pertains to a legal matter heard by the Court of Appeals of New York. The case involved the New York City Transit Authority and the Transport Workers Union of America, Local 100. A motion for leave to appeal was filed. On May 31, 2012, the Court decided to deny this motion.

Transit AuthorityWorkers UnionMotion PracticeLeave to AppealAppellate Procedure
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York

Jose Cruz, a bus operator for the New York City Transit Authority (TA), was found to have color-blindness during a routine physical examination. A physician recommended a road test to assess his fitness, but the TA refused, asserting the test was non-medical and insufficient to evaluate his ability to meet required vision standards under Vehicle and Traffic Law and NYCRR regulations. Subsequently, the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100 (TWU) filed a grievance on Cruz's behalf, which the TA denied, leading to a request for binding arbitration. The TA then initiated a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable. The Supreme Court denied the TA's petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision that was ultimately affirmed by the appellate court, which found no statutory or public policy prohibitions against arbitrating the dispute under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementbus operatorcolor-blindnessvision requirementsroad testpublic sectorarbitrabilitygrievanceappellate decision
References
6
Case No. 452726/24
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 05, 2026

Matter of New York City Tr. Auth. v. Local 100, Transp. Workers Union

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the New York County Supreme Court, which granted the petition to vacate an arbitration award and denied the grievance. The case involved the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) and Local 100, Transport Workers Union. The Supreme Court correctly determined that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by rewriting the parties' collective bargaining agreement. Specifically, the arbitrator implicitly added a new term regarding the scheduling of hearings within 30 "calendar days" before returning an employee to payroll, which contradicted the contract's provision for "30 days," where non-working days are excluded. This interpretation impermissibly limited NYCTA's time to schedule a hearing.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCollective Bargaining AgreementPublic PolicyArbitrator AuthorityContract InterpretationPre-Disciplinary SuspensionTime CalculationJudicial ReviewAppellate Division First Department
References
5
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 05446 [152 AD3d 530]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2017

Matter of Transit Workers Union, Local 100 v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment that denied the petition of Transit Workers Union, Local 100, and nonparty Victor Martinez to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award upheld the termination of Victor Martinez's employment as a bus driver by the New York City Transit Authority due to an incident. The court found that the arbitration award was rational, supported by evidence, and did not violate strong public policy or exceed the arbitrator's power. The penalty of termination was also deemed not irrational.

Arbitration AwardEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 75Arbitrator's PowerPublic PolicyBus Driver MisconductRationality Standard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuelsen v. New York City Transit Authority

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,974 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