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. 2025 NYSlipOp 01851 [236 AD3d 1279]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 27, 2025

Matter of Olivier v. New York State Dept. of Corr.

Claimant Racquel C. Olivier, a correction officer, sustained work-related injuries in April 2022. Her employer, the New York State Dept. of Correction, initially paid her full wages, followed by periods where she used accrued time off and received half salary. After returning to work, her attorney filed for counsel fees, while the employer sought reimbursement for wages paid. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) established the claim, awarded temporary total disability, and approved counsel fees with a significant portion as a lien against the employer's reimbursement. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision, determining that the initial award increased compensation, thus justifying the counsel fees as a lien under Workers' Compensation Law § 24 (2) (b). The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, without costs.

Counsel Fees LienWorkers' Compensation LawEmployer ReimbursementTemporary DisabilityAppellate DivisionClaimant Attorney FeesWage ContinuationStatutory InterpretationWorkers' Compensation Board DecisionJudiciary Law
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF THEROUX v. Reilly

The New York State Court of Appeals addressed whether eligibility for benefits under General Municipal Law § 207-c requires a 'heightened risk' standard for injuries sustained by municipal employees in law enforcement duties. The court concluded that section 207-c does not mandate such a standard, interpreting 'duties' to encompass the full range of a covered employee's job responsibilities. It clarified that eligibility only necessitates demonstrating a 'direct causal relationship between job duties and the resulting illness or injury.' Consequently, the Court reversed the Appellate Division orders in three consolidated cases (Theroux v Reilly, Wagman v Kapica, and James v County of Yates Sheriff’s Dept.) that had erroneously applied the 'heightened risk' standard, reinstating Supreme Court orders in two and remitting one for further proceedings.

Workers' CompensationGeneral Municipal LawPolice OfficersFirefightersDisability BenefitsStatutory InterpretationAppellate ReviewCausal RelationshipJob DutiesPublic Safety Officers
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rumsey v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Plaintiffs, employees of the New York State Department of Correctional Services and military reservists, challenged Departmental Directive # 2212, which allowed the rescheduling of their regular days off to coincide with military drills. They claimed this violated their rights under federal and state military laws and the Equal Protection Clause, arguing it discriminated against them by not requiring similar rescheduling for other types of leave. The defendants asserted the directive was necessary to address staffing shortages and prevent abuse of military leave, noting that pass days were routinely rescheduled for various other reasons. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and granted the defendants' cross-motion, ruling that the directive did not constitute discrimination, as it did not require 'special accommodations' for reservists beyond what was afforded to other employees, consistent with the precedent set in Monroe v. Standard Oil Co.

Military LeaveEmployment RightsWork ScheduleDiscrimination ClaimSummary Judgment MotionCollective BargainingSeniority RightsDepartmental DirectiveFederal LawState Law
References
10
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. 08-cv-6567L
Regular Panel Decision

Davis v. NYS Department of Corrections Attica Correctional Facility

Plaintiff Stefanie A. Davis, a former employee of the New York State Department of Corrections at Attica Correctional Facility, filed a lawsuit alleging race and gender discrimination and unlawful retaliation under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the New York State Human Rights Law. She claimed her supervisor assigned her a disproportionate number of minority inmates, and she faced retaliation after complaining. Defendant's initial motion for summary judgment was granted for all claims except retaliation. Following this, Defendant filed a second motion for summary judgment on the remaining retaliation claim. The court granted Defendant's second summary judgment motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for retaliation, specifically noting the absence of protected activity and materially adverse employment action.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationTitle VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationProtected ActivityAdverse Employment ActionPro Se Litigant
References
24
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott v. City of New York Department of Correction

Plaintiff Collette J. Scott sued Norman Seabrook, the Corrections Officers’ Benevolent Association of the City of New York (COBA), and the City of New York Department of Corrections (DOC), alleging sexual assault, hostile work environment, and retaliation under Title VII and state law. Defendants moved for summary judgment on all claims. Magistrate Judge Gabriel W. Gorenstein recommended granting summary judgment for all defendants on retaliation claims and for DOC on hostile work environment, but denying it for the Seabrook defendants on the hostile work environment claim. District Judge Sidney H. Stein adopted this recommendation in its entirety after de novo review. The Court dismissed all claims against DOC and retaliation claims against Seabrook defendants but denied summary judgment for Seabrook defendants on the hostile work environment claim.

Sexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationSummary JudgmentTitle VIILabor Union LiabilitySex DiscriminationCorrectional OfficersMagistrate Judge RecommendationFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 56
References
65
Case No. 73 Civ. 1540
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1980

Kirkland v. NY STATE DEPT. OF CORRECTIONAL SERVICES

This case, on remand from the Second Circuit, addresses the constitutionality of a new examination (No. 36-435) for correctional sergeants and a proposed 250-point score adjustment for minority applicants. Plaintiffs and defendants sought approval of the exam and summary judgment against intervenors who opposed the score adjustment and the job performance evaluation component. The U.S. District Court, Southern District of New York, granted both requests, finding the revised examination procedure compliant with EEOC Guidelines and federal anti-discrimination laws, and the job performance rating sufficiently objective under state law, concluding that the score adjustment was not an impermissible quota but rather served to balance the examination's validated procedure.

Employment DiscriminationCorrectional ServicesCivil Service ExamsAffirmative ActionSummary JudgmentEEOC GuidelinesTest ValidityMinority PreferenceJudicial ReviewFederal Court
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mordkofsky v. V.C.V. Development Corp.

Plaintiff Norman J. Mordkofsky, a contract-vendee, sustained injuries when a deck at his custom-built home construction site collapsed. He sued defendant V.C.V. Development Corp., alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241. While the Supreme Court dismissed the Labor Law claim, the Appellate Division reinstated it, broadening the protection of these statutes to anyone lawfully frequenting a construction site. However, the higher court reversed the Appellate Division's decision, clarifying that Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 are primarily intended to protect employees and workers, not contract-vendees or the general public. The court concluded that Mordkofsky did not fall within the protected class as he was neither an employee nor hired to work at the site.

Labor Law §§ 200 and 241Construction Site InjuryContract-VendeeEmployee ProtectionStatutory InterpretationScope of Labor LawAppellate ReviewSafe Place to WorkWorkers' RightsPersonal Injury
References
14
Case No. 0140/14, 17508, 17509, 2016-1358, 2016-1408, 2017-1194, 2017-1195
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2023

People v. Flores

The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the lower court's denial of defendants Felix Ojeda Flores and Orlando Carrera's CPL 440.10 motions to vacate their judgments of conviction for a criminal sexual act, assault, and weapon possession. The court found that the prosecution committed a Brady violation by failing to disclose evidence that the Bronx District Attorney's Office was assisting the complainant in obtaining a U visa. This undisclosed evidence was deemed material impeachment evidence that could have influenced the jury's assessment of the complainant's credibility, which was central to the conviction. Consequently, the judgments were vacated, and the indictments were dismissed.

Brady violationU visaImpeachment evidenceCredibility of witnessDue processSuppressed evidenceCPL 440.10 motionVacated judgmentIndictment dismissalCriminal sexual act
References
28
Showing 1-10 of 21,817 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