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. 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. 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. 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. 08-cv-3546 (ADS)(WDW)
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 19, 2011

Smith v. TOWN OF HEMPSTEAD DEPT. OF SANITATION

This civil rights case was brought by three African-American employees, Leo Smith, Jr., Benjamin Cannon, Jr., and John Christopher Smith, against the Town of Hempstead Department of Sanitation Sanitary District No. 2 and several individual defendants. Plaintiffs alleged a hostile work environment based on a noose incident and subsequent retaliation for filing EEOC complaints. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court denied summary judgment on the hostile work environment claims against the Sanitary District, Robert Noble, Michael McDermott, and Nicholas Dionisio, citing triable issues of fact regarding the severity of the environment and the adequacy of the employer's remedial actions. However, summary judgment was granted for defendant John Beyer and the Board of Commissioners on these claims. Retaliation claims by John Smith and Benjamin Cannon were dismissed, but Leo Smith's retaliation claim against Michael McDermott and the Sanitary District was allowed to proceed. All claims of conspiracy under 42 U.S.C. § 1985 were dismissed due to lack of evidence of agreement and the intracorporate conspiracy doctrine.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRacial DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentCivil RightsTitle VIISection 1981Section 1983New York State Human Rights LawIntracorporate Conspiracy Doctrine
References
43
Case No. 03-11-00009-CV
Regular Panel Decision
May 26, 2011

Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation And the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation v. Brian Fanette

The appellants, Rod Bordelon, Commissioner of the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, and the Texas Department of Insurance, Division of Workers' Compensation, filed a motion requesting the dismissal of their appeal. The Texas Court of Appeals, Third District, at Austin, granted this motion and consequently dismissed the appeal. This decision was made in the case against Appellee Brian Fanette.

Texas Court of AppealsWorkers' Compensation DivisionAppeal DismissalAppellant MotionJudicial DistrictTravis CountyMemorandum OpinionAdministrative AgencyState GovernmentAppellate Procedure
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Moss v. Department of Civil Service

The petitioner, a Senior Youth Parole Worker, initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the State Department of Civil Service's requirement of a Master's degree for the Youth Parole Supervisor promotion examination. His application was denied due to the lack of this degree, despite his advanced graduate study and prior assurances of eligibility based on earlier prerequisites. The court affirmed the Civil Service Department's broad discretion in establishing minimum qualifications for competitive examinations. It ruled that earlier prerequisites or unauthorized assurances do not confer a vested right to bypass current requirements, which are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the State Department of Civil Service. Consequently, the application was denied, and the petition dismissed.

Civil Service LawPromotion ExaminationEducational RequirementsMaster's DegreeYouth Parole SupervisorDiscretionVested RightsArticle 78 ProceedingState EmployeesCivil Service Commission
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Casalaspro v. Steisel

Petitioner, a sanitation worker, was dismissed from the New York City Department of Sanitation for working at a construction site while on paid leave for a claimed line of duty injury in August 1979. He pleaded guilty to the charges but sought reinstatement via an article 78 proceeding, arguing the charges were legally insufficient and he was unaware of the plea's consequences. The court found his claims unsupported, stating his explanation defied logic and that paid sick leave is not for working elsewhere while collecting a city paycheck. The court concluded the dismissal was not arbitrary or illegal, rejecting the petitioner's arguments, and dismissed the petition.

Sanitation WorkerDismissalMisconductLine of Duty InjuryPaid Leave AbuseArticle 78 ProceedingPublic Trust ViolationEquitable PowersUnclean HandsAbuse of Discretion
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2007

Lowe v. Doherty

The respondent Commissioner of the New York City Department of Sanitation's determination, dated October 17, 2007, to terminate a sanitation worker's employment for soliciting and accepting a gratuity for trade waste collection was unanimously confirmed. The petitioner's CPLR article 78 petition, which was transferred from Supreme Court, New York County, was denied and the proceeding dismissed without costs. The court found that substantial evidence, including testimony from undercover investigators who conducted an "integrity test" and an audio recording, supported the finding that the petitioner had engaged in misconduct. Furthermore, the court found no basis to disturb the hearing officer's findings of credibility. Finally, the court concluded that the penalty of termination did not shock the conscience.

Employment TerminationMisconductGratuitySanitation DepartmentJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceCredibility FindingsPenalty ReviewNew York City
References
3
Case No. 03-16-00473-CV
Regular Panel Decision

E. A.// Texas Department of Family and Protective Services v. Texas Department of Family and Protective Services// Cross-Appellee, E. A.

This document is an appeal brief filed by the Texas Department of Family and Protective Services (the Department) in the Third Court of Appeals, Austin, Texas. The appeal concerns an administrative proceeding where E.A. challenged a Texas Health and Human Services Commission order. The order affirmed the Department's decision to place E.A.'s name in the Employee Misconduct Registry after an administrative law judge found E.A. neglected residents at Four J’s Community Living Center. The central argument of the brief is that the trial court lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over E.A.'s suit for judicial review because E.A. failed to file a timely motion for rehearing, a jurisdictional prerequisite under the Administrative Procedure Act. The Department seeks to reverse the trial court's order denying its plea to the jurisdiction and to dismiss E.A.'s suit.

Administrative LawJudicial ReviewSovereign ImmunityEmployee Misconduct RegistryContested CaseMotion for RehearingJurisdictionAppellate ProcedureStatutory InterpretationTexas Government Code
References
13
Showing 1-10 of 5,518 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