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

American Train Dispatchers Ass'n v. Metro-North Commuter Railroad

Plaintiff American Train Dispatchers Association (ATDA) accused defendant Metro-North Commuter Railroad Company of violating the Railway Labor Act (RLA) by unilaterally implementing changes to work rules and conditions without prior union consultation. The changes concerned sick leave, vacation days, training time, work attire, and drug/alcohol testing. The court classified these disputes as either 'major' or 'minor' under the RLA. It found that the automatic requirement for doctor's certificates for sick days not contiguous to rest days, holidays, or vacation, and the new work attire policy constituted 'major disputes', and thus granted a permanent injunction to restore the status quo. However, the court deemed disputes over training time, single vacation days, and sick days contiguous to rest days/holidays/vacation as 'minor disputes', denying injunctive relief for these. The court also denied injunctive relief for random drug testing due to insufficient evidence, noting that the issue of drug testing as part of regular medical examinations was being addressed in a separate ruling.

Railway Labor ActMajor DisputeMinor DisputeInjunctive ReliefWork RulesSick Leave PolicyVacation PolicyTraining TimeDress CodeDrug Testing
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

Joint Apprenticeship & Training Council of Local 363 v. New York State Department of Labor

The plaintiff, Joint Apprenticeship and Training Council of Local 363 (JATC), sought a preliminary injunction to prevent the New York State Department of Labor (NYSDOL) from deactivating its status as a registered apprenticeship training program. JATC argued that deactivation procedures should mirror deregistration, requiring a hearing, and that the Fitzgerald Act provided a private right of action. The court denied the motion, finding no federal requirement for a hearing for deactivation and distinguishing it from deregistration, which has more severe consequences. Furthermore, the court concluded that the Fitzgerald Act does not create a private right of action for program sponsors. The court also found no irreparable harm to the plaintiff or its apprentices, as apprentices could transfer to other programs without losing credit, and the JATC program could re-register or continue unregistered.

Preliminary InjunctionApprenticeship ProgramDeactivationDeregistrationNew York State Department of LaborFitzgerald ActPrivate Right of ActionIrreparable HarmFederal RegulationsState Regulations
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brown v. County of Erie

This appellate case concerns the standing of petitioners, Building and Construction Trades Council of Buffalo and Vicinity and Operating Engineers Local 17 Training Fund, to challenge a public works contract awarded by Erie County to Tom Greenauer Development, Inc. Petitioners argued the contract was invalid due to Greenauer's non-compliance with a local law requiring a certified worker training program. The Supreme Court's decision granting the petition was reversed on appeal, with the appellate court concluding that petitioners lacked standing. The court held that petitioners failed to demonstrate an actual injury in fact distinct from the general public, deeming their alleged harm speculative and insufficient for associational or organizational standing. A dissenting opinion argued that petitioners did have standing, emphasizing the local law's intent to promote apprenticeship programs and the direct impact of the county's non-compliance on petitioners' ability to participate.

StandingPublic ContractsLocal LawWorker Training ProgramApprenticeshipErie CountyCPLR Article 78PreemptionERISAInjury in Fact
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prevost v. New York State Department of Social Services

The petitioners, maternal grandparents, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a determination by the State Commissioner of Social Services and the Warren County Department of Social Services. They sought to expunge a report from the State Central Register indicating inadequate guardianship concerning their grandson, Justin. Justin had been placed in foster care, and concerns arose about his behavior after monthly visits with the petitioners, prompting a psychiatrist to recommend discontinuing overnight visits. The psychiatric report detailed Justin's anger towards his grandmother and later allegations of diapering. Despite the petitioners' denials and claims of bias, the agency's decision to indicate inadequate guardianship was upheld after administrative review and a fair hearing. The court ultimately confirmed the determination, citing substantial evidence based on Justin's consistent accounts.

Child protective servicesInadequate guardianshipFoster careAdoption eligibilityCPLR article 78 proceedingAdministrative reviewExpungement of reportHearsay evidenceCredibility determinationSocial Services Law
References
3
Case No. 88 Civ. 2505 (VLB)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 25, 1994

Gottlieb v. County of Orange

This civil rights action brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 addresses the tension between familial privacy and the protection of children from sexual abuse. The case arose from a father being directed to leave his home or face the removal of his daughter, following allegations of abuse. The court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment. It granted summary judgment for the individual defendants, finding they were protected by qualified immunity as their actions were objectively reasonable given their training. However, the court denied summary judgment for the institutional defendants, the County of Orange and the Orange County Department of Social Services, indicating potential institutional liability for inadequate procedures and training in child abuse investigations.

Civil RightsChild AbuseFamilial RightsQualified ImmunityMunicipal LiabilitySocial ServicesChild Protective ServicesSummary JudgmentConstitutional LawDue Process
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hot v. Carmel Central School District

Vahidin Hot, an 18-year-old student, died after threatening his girlfriend and another student, and then himself. His parents, Murat and Sevdija Hot, filed claims against the Carmel Central School District and the County of Putnam under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state law, alleging that inadequate training of personnel caused their son's death. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The court granted summary judgment on all federal claims, concluding that the circumstances leading to Hot's death were highly anomalous and unforeseeable, thus precluding a finding of "deliberate indifference" for failure to train. The court declined to exercise jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Failure to TrainSection 1983 ClaimsDeliberate IndifferenceSummary JudgmentConstitutional Rights ViolationWrongful DeathSchool District LiabilityCounty LiabilityPolice MisconductForeseeability
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. CV 96 3467 (RJD)
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 09, 1997

Gray v. GROVE MFG. CO., DIV. OF KIDDE, INC.

Plaintiffs, including union officials and beneficiaries of Local 14, initiated an action against Grove Manufacturing Company for tortious interference with contract and prima facie tort, also seeking a permanent injunction. The case was removed to the United States District Court, E.D. New York, due to a federal pre-emption claim under section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act of 1947. The core dispute revolved around Grove's marketing of a 'cherrypicker' crane, allegedly enabling employers to bypass a Collective Bargaining Agreement (CBA) requiring a union member for cranes exceeding a certain lift capacity. The court dismissed the prima facie tort claim, citing inadequate pleading of special damages and insufficient evidence of 'disinterested malevolence.' Furthermore, the court granted summary judgment to Grove on the tortious interference and injunction claims, ruling that these state law claims were pre-empted by LMRA § 301 because their resolution necessitated interpretation of the CBA and implicated fundamental federal labor law principles, including the strong policy favoring arbitration.

Labor LawLMRA Section 301Pre-emptionTortious InterferencePrima Facie TortCollective Bargaining AgreementSummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionArbitrationUnion
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Robinson v. New York City Housing Authority

Plaintiff, an employee of S.J.K. Contracting Corp. (SJK), was injured while operating a forklift at a housing project owned by defendant New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA). Plaintiff alleged NYCHA was negligent and violated Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) by failing to supervise and control SJK's work. The accident occurred when the forklift's wheels slid off an unseen curb, causing it to tip. NYCHA moved for summary judgment. The court found that NYCHA could not be liable under Labor Law § 200 because it did not control SJK's training or work methods and lacked knowledge of the plaintiff's inadequate training. However, the court denied summary judgment regarding Labor Law § 241 (6), stating that liability under this section is vicarious and nondelegable for owners, even without control over the work, and can extend to improper procedures by subcontractors. Therefore, NYCHA's motion for summary judgment was granted concerning Labor Law § 200 but denied concerning Labor Law § 241 (6).

Summary JudgmentLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Forklift AccidentWorkplace SafetyOwner LiabilityContractor NegligenceVicarious LiabilityNondelegable DutyConstruction Site
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jean-Louis v. Hilton Hotels Corp.

The court properly dismissed the plaintiff's second cause of action, which alleged negligent training, management, and supervision of employees. The plaintiff claimed she was confined to an office for an hour and denied a union representative during a discussion regarding work distribution based on her ethnicity and religious beliefs. The court ruled that this claim is barred by the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers’ Compensation Law. It further stated that the cause of action did not provide sufficient facts to invoke the intentional tort exception to the Workers’ Compensation Law, specifically lacking allegations that the defendants had knowledge of or acquiesced in their employees' tortious conduct.

negligent trainingnegligent supervisionworkers' compensation lawexclusive remedyintentional tort exceptionemployment lawdismissalunion representationethnicity discriminationreligious discrimination
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,030 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