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

PSEG Long Island LLC v. Town of North Hempstead

This case involves a constitutional challenge by PSEG Long Island LLC and LIPA against the Town of North Hempstead and its officials over Chapter 64B of the Town Code. The ordinance requires public utility providers to post warning signs on wooden utility poles treated with chemical preservatives, which the plaintiffs argue compels noncommercial speech in violation of the First Amendment. The Court determined that the ordinance regulates noncommercial speech, thus requiring strict scrutiny. Finding that the Town failed to demonstrate that the ordinance was narrowly tailored or that less restrictive means were unavailable to achieve its public safety objectives, the Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment, permanently enjoining the enforcement of Chapter 64B, and denied the Town's cross-motion.

Constitutional LawFirst AmendmentCompelled SpeechCommercial Speech DoctrineGovernment Speech DoctrineStrict ScrutinySummary JudgmentUtility PolesChemical PreservativesPublic Safety
References
38
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Long Island Pine Barrens Society, Inc. v. Planning Board of Brookhaven

This case addresses whether the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) mandates a cumulative impact statement for over 200 proposed development projects in the Central Pine Barrens of Long Island, a region critical for the area's drinking water aquifer and unique ecology. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, holding that SEQRA's requirements for mandatory cumulative impact statements do not apply to this situation. The court distinguished between a general governmental policy of protecting a region and a specific governmental plan for development, asserting that only the latter triggers mandatory cumulative review. It emphasized that a centralized planning approach by the Long Island Regional Planning Board, as outlined in ECL article 55, is the appropriate mechanism for managing development in such a vast and sensitive area, rather than piecemeal decisions through individual SEQRA reviews. While acknowledging the environmental urgency and the delay in the Regional Planning Board's action, the court concluded that the solution must come from legislative action, not by extending SEQRA's existing provisions.

Environmental LawSEQRACumulative Impact StatementPine BarrensLong IslandAquifer ProtectionLand Use PlanningSuffolk CountyState Environmental Quality Review ActECL Article 55
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Ganthier v. North Shore-Long Island Jewish Healthy System

Esther Ganthier sued North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System, Susan Tobin, GreyStone Staffing, Inc., and Karen Westerlind alleging race and national origin discrimination, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy. GreyStone and Westerlind moved to dismiss, while Ganthier cross-moved for leave to amend her complaint. The Court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against GreyStone and Westerlind, finding individuals are not liable under Title VII and GreyStone was not named in the EEOC charge. It also dismissed Section 1981, First Amendment retaliation, and conspiracy claims due to pleading deficiencies. Consequently, the Court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state and city human rights laws against the dismissed defendants and denied Ganthier's cross-motion to amend as futile, instructing to amend the caption to reflect only North Shore-Long Island Jewish Health System and Susan Tobin as defendants.

DiscriminationNational Origin DiscriminationRace DiscriminationFirst Amendment RetaliationConspiracyMotion to DismissLeave to AmendTitle VII ClaimsSection 1981 ClaimsFederal Civil Procedure Rules
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 28, 2000

Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust v. Gerber Life Insurance

Plaintiff Oil Heat Institute of Long Island Insurance Trust (OHI) sued Gerber Life Insurance Company (Gerber), Island Group Administration, Inc. (IGA), and RMTS Associates, alleging Gerber refused to reimburse stop-loss claims and issue a letter of certification to a lender. OHI had established a self-insurance program, and Gerber issued an aggregate stop-loss (ASL) policy. OHI commenced the action on the day the ASL policy expired, before the attachment point for reimbursement could be calculated and before submitting proper documentation. The Supreme Court denied Gerber's motion for summary judgment. The Appellate Division reversed, finding that OHI failed to demonstrate compliance with the ASL policy's reimbursement terms, lacked material facts to support its claims, and initiated the action prematurely. Both causes of action were dismissed against Gerber.

Insurance LawSummary JudgmentAggregate Stop-Loss PolicyContract DisputeReimbursementPolicy TermsAppellate ReviewGood FaithDocumentation RequirementsAgency
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kaelin v. Long Island Railroad

The plaintiff filed an action against the Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR), alleging that LIRR denied him employment as a locomotive engineer-trainee due to its CETA-funded hiring practices, violating the CETA 'maintenance of effort' regulation and his civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The LIRR moved for summary judgment, relying on a Department of Labor finding that no CETA violation occurred. The court granted summary judgment in favor of LIRR, holding that the plaintiff lacked standing to enforce CETA regulations and had no protected property interest in the employment position, thereby dismissing his civil rights claim.

Summary JudgmentEmployment LawCivil RightsCETAStandingProperty InterestAdministrative LawFederal CourtDismissalLong Island Railroad
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Vann v. Long Island Railroad

The plaintiff, Vann, was injured after slipping on ice at a Quality Inn in Maryland, where he was staying while on assignment for his employer, Long Island Railroad Company (LIRR). Reservations for Vann were made by General Motors (GM) personnel at the request of LIRR. Vann subsequently sued LIRR under the Federal Employers' Liability Act (FELA) and Quality International (Quality) under a negligence theory. LIRR moved for summary judgment, arguing Quality was not acting as its agent. The Supreme Court, Suffolk County, granted LIRR's motion and dismissed the complaint against it. The appellate court affirmed the decision, concluding that Quality was not performing 'operational activities' of LIRR as required to establish an agency relationship under FELA.

FELAFederal Employers' Liability ActRailroad liabilityAgency doctrineSummary judgmentNegligence actionPersonal injuryInterstate commerceOperational activitiesEmployer liability
References
7
Case No. Docket Entry 5
Regular Panel Decision

Johnson v. Long Island University

Plaintiff Tremaine Johnson sued his employer, Long Island University (LIU), alleging race and gender discrimination and a hostile work environment under Title VII, 42 U.S.C. § 1981, and the New York State Human Rights Law. LIU moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. The court granted LIU's motion in part and denied it in part, dismissing certain Title VII claims due to untimeliness or failure to exhaust administrative remedies, and also dismissing hostile work environment claims. However, the plaintiff's race-based discrimination claims concerning denied compensation opportunities, a disproportionate workload, and failure to hire for an Associate Director position were allowed to proceed. Plaintiff was also granted leave to replead claims regarding denied training and negative performance reviews.

Employment DiscriminationRace DiscriminationGender DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentMotion to DismissTitle VII42 U.S.C. § 1981New York State Human Rights LawAdverse Employment ActionDisparate Treatment
References
52
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Franco v. Long Island Railroad

Plaintiff appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, dated August 6, 1981, which granted summary judgment to defendants Liguori and Pastore and dismissed the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. The plaintiff, who was discharged from Long Island Railroad, initially filed 25 causes of action, including defamation and conspiracy against individual defendants, and wrongful discharge against the railroad. After the case was removed to Federal District Court, plaintiff discontinued claims against the railroad, and the 23 common-law causes of action were remitted to the New York State Supreme Court. The State Supreme Court again granted summary judgment to the individual defendants, citing pre-emption by the Federal Railway Labor Act. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, holding that the Railway Labor Act does not apply to common-law actions solely between employees, and therefore denied the individual defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Wrongful DischargeDefamationConspiracyRailway Labor ActSubject Matter JurisdictionSummary JudgmentExhaustion of Administrative RemediesFederal PreemptionCommon-Law ActionsAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Randi A.J. v. Long Island Surgi-Center

The dissenting opinion by Justice Krausman argues against the imposition of punitive damages on Long Island Surgi-Center for a negligent breach of patient confidentiality. The plaintiff's abortion information was accidentally disclosed to her parents, causing emotional distress. Justice Krausman contends that while the center's conduct involved negligence, it did not meet the high threshold of moral culpability, malice, or conscious disregard required for punitive damages, especially since the actions were motivated by health concerns and not malicious intent. The opinion distinguishes this case from others involving gross negligence or intentional wrongdoing. Furthermore, the New York State Department of Health has already investigated and mandated corrective actions for the center, making additional punitive measures unnecessary for deterrence. Therefore, Krausman advocates for modifying the judgment to eliminate the punitive damages award.

Punitive DamagesMedical ConfidentialityBreach of PrivacyAbortionNegligenceEmotional DistressAppellate DecisionSuffolk CountyDissenting OpinionTort Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rosello v. Long Island Rail Road

John Rosello sued The Long Island Rail Road Company under the Federal Employers’ Liability Act (FELA) after sustaining neck and head injuries while working. A jury awarded him over $1.9 million in damages for pain, suffering, and lost earnings. The defendant filed a post-trial motion for a new trial or remittitur, arguing the awards were excessive and citing pre-existing conditions and the plaintiff's smoking habit. The court denied the defendant's motion, affirming the jury's verdict by comparing the awards to similar FELA cases and crediting the treating physician's testimony that the accident caused the injuries and necessitated two spinal surgeries.

FELANegligencePersonal InjurySpinal InjuryNeck InjuryBackhoe AccidentDamages AwardPain and SufferingLost WagesMedical Expenses
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 811 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