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

Cruz v. Liberatore

Plaintiff Victor Cruz, a Puerto Rican police officer, filed suit against Louis Liberatore, Thomas Belfiore, the WCPD, and Westchester County, alleging claims including hostile work environment, failure to train and supervise, and retaliation. Cruz claimed Inspector Liberatore made discriminatory remarks, humiliated him, and physically assaulted him. After filing an EEOC complaint and an internal investigation, Cruz was transferred, which he asserted was retaliatory. The court partially granted and partially denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment, allowing some hostile work environment and retaliation claims to proceed while dismissing others, including those against Liberatore in his official capacity and the Title VII hostile work environment claim against the WCPD/County.

Hostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationSection 1983Title VIINew York State Human Rights LawSummary JudgmentPolice MisconductEthnic DiscriminationWorkplace Harassment
References
53
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
Aug 21, 1998

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

The County of Westchester appealed orders from the Supreme Court, Westchester County. The Supreme Court had granted the Westchester County Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc.'s petition to quash administrative subpoenas (Matter No. 1) and denied the County's motion to enjoin the Association from challenging the subpoenas (Matter No. 2). The appellate court affirmed both orders, finding that the County failed to adhere to Workers’ Compensation Law § 300.10 (c). This statute mandates that subpoenas to a claimant's treating physician can only be issued upon the physician's non-appearance at the first adjournment, not as a routine practice prior to attempts at voluntary appearance. The court emphasized that the County's prior practice violated the statute and impeded the remedial goals of the Workers' Compensation Law.

Administrative LawWorkers' CompensationSubpoena ComplianceAppellate CourtLabor RelationsStatutory InterpretationDue ProcessCollective BargainingJudicial ReviewPublic Sector Employment
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Cruz

The dissenting opinion argues against affirming a restitution award to Nassau County. The majority held Nassau County is a "victim" under Penal Law § 60.27 for sick leave and medical bills paid to a police officer injured during a burglary. The dissent contends that statutory interpretation and public policy preclude reimbursing a municipal law enforcement agency for foreseeable operating costs, including personnel costs. It asserts that sick leave payments are not "actual out-of-pocket loss" and, referencing People v Rowe, law enforcement agencies are not "victims" for normal operating expenses. The dissent criticizes the distinction between operational and employment functions, arguing that costs for officer injuries are inherent to crime-fighting and should not be recovered from the defendant without specific statutory authorization.

restitutionPenal Law § 60.27victim statuslaw enforcement agencyoperating costssick leavemunicipal liabilitypolice officer injurystatutory interpretationlegislative intent
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Ass'n of Municipal Employees, Inc. v. County of Suffolk

The plaintiff, Suffolk County Association of Municipal Employees, Inc., appealed an order dismissing its complaint against Suffolk County. The Union sought to permanently enjoin the County from imposing mandatory furloughs and discharging employees under a collective bargaining agreement. The Supreme Court had dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and denied a preliminary injunction. The appellate court modified the order, finding that the Supreme Court has subject matter jurisdiction. However, it affirmed the denial of the preliminary injunction, stating that loss of employment does not constitute irreparable harm as affected workers are entitled to reinstatement and back pay if they prevail.

Public EmploymentCollective Bargaining AgreementMandatory FurloughsEmployee DischargeSubject Matter JurisdictionPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmBudget DeficitPersonnel ReductionsAppellate Review
References
11
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00069 [223 AD3d 660]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 10, 2024

Matter of County of Nassau v. Nassau County Sheriff's Corr. Officers' Benevolent Assn.

The County of Nassau appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had concluded that the County violated a collective bargaining agreement by denying General Municipal Law § 207-c benefits to correction officers who missed no work time but sought medical treatment for work-related injuries or illnesses. The Supreme Court initially denied the County's petition and granted the union's cross-petition to confirm the award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed this order, finding the arbitration award to be irrational because the claimants neither sought payment of salary/wages nor reimbursement for out-of-pocket medical expenses, thus not requiring the benefits outlined in General Municipal Law § 207-c. Consequently, the County's petition to vacate the arbitration award was granted, and the cross-petition to confirm was denied.

Arbitration AwardVacaturCollective Bargaining AgreementGeneral Municipal Law § 207-cCorrection OfficersMedical BenefitsLost TimePublic Policy ExceptionIrrational AwardAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01947 [226 AD3d 845]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 10, 2024

Verderosa v. County of Suffolk

The case "Verderosa v County of Suffolk" involves an appeal from an order granting summary judgment to defendants County of Suffolk and Architectural Entrance Systems, Inc. (AES) in a personal injury action. The plaintiff, Linda Verderosa, sought damages after Salvatore Verderosa (decedent) was injured when his hand became trapped in a courthouse door. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint against AES, finding no duty owed by AES to the decedent. However, the court reversed the dismissal against the County of Suffolk, determining that the County failed to demonstrate a lack of constructive notice regarding a dangerous condition (e.g., door speed, jagged handle) prior to the accident.

Personal InjuryPremises LiabilitySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewContractual ObligationTort LiabilityDangerous ConditionConstructive NoticeDoor AccidentSuffolk County
References
11
Case No. ADJ2668495 (SAL 0120174) ADJ1907387 (SAL 0120175) ADJ8804047
Regular
Aug 02, 2010

ORESTE (RUSTY) LOCATELLI vs. COUNTY OF SANTA CRUZ, OCTAGON RISK SERVICES

This order denies the applicant's petition for reconsideration in a workers' compensation case against the County of Santa Cruz and Octagon Risk Services. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board adopted and incorporated the reasoning of the workers' compensation administrative law judge's report. Therefore, the petition for reconsideration is formally denied.

Petition for ReconsiderationWorkers' Compensation Appeals BoardWCJ reportdeny reconsiderationLocatelli v. County of Santa CruzOctagon Risk ServicesADJ2668495ADJ1907387ADJ8804047administrative law judge
References
0
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 02920 [238 AD3d 876]
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 2025

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

The Nassau County Sheriff's Correction Officers Benevolent Association, Inc. (the Union) appealed an order that denied its petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration stemmed from a grievance alleging that Nassau County violated a collective bargaining agreement by not crediting compensatory time to Union members working during a COVID-19 state of emergency. The arbitrator ruled in favor of the County, and the Supreme Court confirmed this award. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review for arbitration awards. The court found that the Union failed to prove the award was irrational or that the arbitrator exceeded their power, as the award was supported by the record and based on an interpretation of the CBA.

ArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementCPLR Article 75VacaturAppellate ReviewLabor DisputeCOVID-19Nassau CountyCompensatory TimeContract Interpretation
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2001

Adams v. Santa Fe Construction Corp.

The Supreme Court, Bronx County, order denying the Santa Fe defendants' motion for summary judgment and granting plaintiff's cross-motion for leave to serve a supplemental bill of particulars was unanimously affirmed. The denial of summary judgment was due to unresolved questions of fact regarding whether the plaintiff was a special employee of the Santa Fe defendants, thus precluding the application of the Workers' Compensation Law § 11 exclusivity rule. Evidence suggested shared supervision and control over the construction site between the Santa Fe defendants and the plaintiff's general employer. The court also found that the supplemental bill of particulars merely amplified existing allegations under Labor Law § 241 (6) by citing specific Industrial Code chapter headings, and did not introduce new theories of liability, thus affirming its grant.

special employeeWorkers' Compensation LawLabor Lawsummary judgmentbill of particularsIndustrial Codeshared supervisionconstruction siteappellate affirmance
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 22,161 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