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 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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 29, 2010

Mauro v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc.

Plaintiff Maria Mauro brought an action against Countrywide Home Loans, Inc., and several other defendants, including her investment advisor Peter J. Dawson and the Kaplan defendants (attorneys for Countrywide), alleging federal claims under the Truth in Lending Act (TILA) and various state law claims. Mauro claimed that the proceeds from two mortgage loans, secured by her investment rental properties, were misappropriated by Dawson. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing that TILA was inapplicable because the loans were for business purposes and that the Kaplan defendants were not 'creditors' under the statute. The court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the TILA claim, concluding that the loans were indeed for business purposes, thus exempting them from TILA's coverage. The court also found that the Kaplan defendants did not qualify as 'creditors' under TILA. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Truth in Lending ActTILA ExemptionBusiness PurposeInvestment PropertySummary JudgmentFederal JurisdictionSupplemental JurisdictionState Law ClaimsMortgage FraudCreditor Definition
References
57
Case No. Dkt. No. 1
Regular Panel Decision

Oklahoma Firefighters Pension & Retirement System v. Student Loan Corp.

Lead plaintiffs Oklahoma Firefighters Pension and Retirement System and Elk-horn Partners LP brought a putative class action against Student Loan Corporation, its officers, Citigroup, Citibank, Citi Holdings, and Discover Financial Services. Plaintiffs alleged that Student Loan Corp. violated GAAP by failing to maintain adequate reserves for student loan losses and materially misrepresented its loan portfolios and risk exposure in violation of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 and SEC Rule 10b-5. Defendants moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The Court granted the defendants' motion, concluding that the plaintiffs failed to adequately plead actionable misrepresentations or omissions, scienter, and loss causation. The Court also noted that the named plaintiffs lacked standing due to a prior settlement order in a related Delaware action.

Securities FraudClass ActionMotion to DismissGAAP ViolationsLoan Loss ReservesFinancial DisclosuresPrivate Securities Litigation Reform ActScienterLoss CausationCorporate Governance
References
56
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers

Plaintiff Charles B. MeLaurin filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous New Rochelle police officers and city officials, including Peter Kornas, Louis Falcone, Brian Fagan, David Lornegan, Edward Martinez, Dominic Procopio, Mayor Timothy Idoni, and the City of New Rochelle. MeLaurin alleged constitutional rights violations stemming from two arrests: one for assault on August 6, 2001, and another for criminal contempt on September 28, 2002. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The court granted dismissal with prejudice for most defendants, finding their actions objectively reasonable or lacking personal involvement, or due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim or comply with state law. Claims against Officers Lynch, Lore, Conca, Al-Fattaah, Kamau, and Navarette were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal involvement. Officer Dina Lynn Moretti's motion was converted to one for summary judgment, giving the plaintiff 45 days to provide evidence regarding probable cause for the second arrest. State law claims were also dismissed due to non-compliance with New York General Municipal Law notice-of-claim requirements.

Excessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityPro Se LitigationMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56Civil Rights Violation
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M. Cristo, Inc. v. State of New York Office of General Services

This dissenting opinion by Staley, Jr., J. concerns the rejection of a low bid from a petitioner by the Office of General Services. The rejection was based on the petitioner's unresolved labor dispute with Laborers Local No. 190, which the Office of General Services feared would cause disruption and delay to the South Mall project, a 'time of the essence' contract. Staley, Jr., J. argues that the State's action was lawful, citing State Finance Law § 174 and previous cases that permit bid rejection in the best interests of the State, especially when a labor dispute threatens project completion. The dissent distinguishes this case from precedents involving mere threats of union action. However, the majority decision, which this opinion dissents from, reversed the judgment and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Labor DisputeBid RejectionState ContractPublic WorksTime of EssenceJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionProcurement LawNonunion WorkersProject Delay
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2018

Greenaway v. Cnty. of Nassau

This case addresses post-verdict motions following a jury trial where plaintiffs Shuay'b Greenaway, Sharon Knight, and Avery Knight sued the Incorporated Village of Hempstead, County of Nassau, and several police officers for constitutional violations including false imprisonment, excessive force, and unlawful entry. The jury found defendants liable on multiple counts, awarding substantial damages. The District Court largely denied motions for judgment as a matter of law. While upholding most liability findings, the Court granted remittitur for Mr. Greenaway's excessive force award, reducing it to $2.5 million, and for the unlawful entry/trespass claim, reducing it to $10,000. Punitive damages against individual officers were upheld, but awards for gross negligence and failure to intervene were reduced to zero.

Excessive ForceFalse ImprisonmentUnlawful EntryTrespassMunicipal LiabilityPunitive DamagesRule 50(b) MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturQualified Immunity
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Arbitration between New York State Department of Correctional Services & New York State Correctional Officers

This case involves an appeal from a Supreme Court order vacating an arbitration award. Petitioners, the Department of Correctional Services and Governor's Office of Employee Relations, challenged an arbitrator's decision to grant a correction sergeant, Charles Hannigan, approximately $4,000 in vacation and holiday accruals. The arbitrator had initially issued an award with a 45-day suspension for Hannigan and then retained jurisdiction to ensure "made whole" implementation. Petitioners argued the arbitrator exceeded his power by reopening the arbitration. The Supreme Court agreed and vacated the award, a decision affirmed by the appellate court. The appellate court found that the arbitrator's retention of jurisdiction and subsequent reopening of the award violated explicit limitations in the collective bargaining agreement.

Arbitration awardVacaturArbitrator's jurisdictionCollective bargaining agreementPublic employmentCorrection officerBack payEmployee benefitsWaiverScope of arbitration
References
21
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04734 [197 AD3d 684]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2021

Westchester County Corr. Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. County of Westchester

The Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc., and individual correction officers sued the County of Westchester for breach of a collective bargaining agreement (CBA). They sought damages, claiming entitlement to disability retirement benefits equivalent to those under the Workers' Compensation Law for loss of earning capacity. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the CBA was silent on such awards. The Supreme Court granted the defendants' motion and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for leave to amend the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the CBA did not contain a provision for the claimed retirement benefits, thus the complaint failed to state a cause of action and the proposed amendment lacked merit.

Breach of ContractCollective Bargaining AgreementDisability BenefitsGeneral Municipal LawCPLR ProcedureMotion to DismissLeave to AmendAppellate ReviewRetirement BenefitsWorkers' Compensation Law Benefits
References
9
Case No. 2016 NY Slip Op 02096
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 23, 2016

Matter of Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Assn., Inc. v. Nassau County

John Thomas, a correction officer, sustained a back injury in 1998 and subsequently received General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits. After periods of restricted duty and military service, medical evaluations in 2009 determined he was unfit for any duty, reinstating his benefits. However, in February 2010, a County-appointed doctor deemed him fit for light-duty work, leading the Nassau County Sheriff's Department to discontinue his benefits. Thomas and his labor union challenged this decision, arguing a due process violation due to the hearing officer placing the burden of proof on Thomas to demonstrate his unfitness. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's dismissal, concluding that Thomas was afforded due process as he had the opportunity to present evidence and requiring him to support his claim of continued total disability was permissible.

CPLR Article 78 ProceedingGeneral Municipal Law § 207-c BenefitsDue Process RightsBurden of ProofLight-Duty AssignmentCorrection Officer InjuryDiscontinuation of BenefitsAppellate ReviewProperty InterestCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Steen v. Governor's Office of Employee Relations

Petitioners, employed as Recreation Workers and Therapists at Pilgrim Psychiatric Center, were assigned new duties as "Treatment Plan Coordinators" under the "Buffalo Model" program. These new responsibilities included transcribing patient information, conducting patient interviews, entering data into worksheets, and performing 90-day progress reviews. Believing these tasks constituted out-of-title work typically performed by higher-grade Treatment Team Leaders, petitioners filed administrative grievances, which were consistently denied by the Governor's Office of Employee Relations. Subsequently, petitioners commenced a CPLR article 78 proceeding, but the Supreme Court dismissed their application, upholding the administrative determination. On appeal, the higher court found no rational basis for the administrative conclusion that the duties were a logical extension of petitioners' original roles, determining that the work was indeed out-of-title. Consequently, the judgment of the Supreme Court was reversed, the administrative determination annulled, and the petition granted.

Out-of-title workGrievancePosition classificationAdministrative determinationJudicial reviewAlbany CountyState Office of Mental HealthPilgrim Psychiatric CenterTreatment Plan CoordinatorsRecreation Worker
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 2,403 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