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

Sweeney v. Barnhart

Robert Sweeney, the claimant, appealed the Commissioner of Social Security's denial of disability benefits under the Social Security Act. Sweeney alleged disability due to depression, but also had a significant history of alcohol and substance abuse, which led to job termination and arrests. The Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) found that while Sweeney had severe impairments, his drug and alcohol addiction was a material contributing factor to his disability. The District Court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, agreeing that without the effects of substance abuse, Sweeney retained the capacity to perform his past relevant work, thus upholding the denial of benefits.

Disability BenefitsSocial Security ActSubstance AbuseAlcohol DependenceDepressionAdministrative Law JudgeJudicial ReviewTreating Physician RuleResidual Functional CapacityMental Impairment
References
24
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 08613 [167 AD3d 1222]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 13, 2018

Matter of Sweeney v. Air Stream A.C. Co.

Claimant Charles Sweeney III sustained a work-related right bicep injury in August 2016. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) decision on October 3, 2017, awarded him benefits for a 30% schedule loss of use of his right arm. Subsequently, the claimant alleged that the State Insurance Fund failed to make timely payment as per Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (3) (f). However, at a November 2017 hearing, the claimant's counsel accepted documentation from the State Insurance Fund, leading the WCLJ to find the payment timely. The Workers' Compensation Board denied the claimant's application for review, citing his failure to object to the WCLJ's ruling during the hearing. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing that the timeliness of payment was a factual issue that should have been developed at the hearing, and the claimant's counsel did not interpose a specific objection.

Workers' Compensation LawAppellate ReviewTimely PaymentPenalty ProvisionWCLJ DecisionBoard ApplicationProcedural ComplianceWaiver of ObjectionSchedule Loss of UseInsurance Carrier Liability
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweeney v. Riverbay Corp.

Plaintiff Margaret Sweeney sought damages for injuries sustained after tripping over a garden hose on a sidewalk managed by defendant Riverbay Corporation. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, finding the hazard open and obvious. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, ruling that even if the condition was open and obvious, the defendant still had a duty to maintain reasonably safe premises. A triable issue of fact existed regarding whether the hose had been present for a sufficient time to establish constructive notice, thus reinstating the complaint. A dissenting opinion argued that 30 minutes was an insufficient period for the defendant to have constructive notice of the condition across its 300-acre property, advocating to affirm the summary judgment.

Premises LiabilityTripping HazardGarden HoseSidewalk SafetySummary JudgmentConstructive NoticeOpen and ObviousDuty to MaintainAppellate ReviewNegligence
References
13
Case No. 89 N.Y.2d 395
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 1996

CAYUGA-ONONDAGA BD v. Sweeney

In a case brought by the Commissioner of Labor, the Cayuga-Onondaga Counties Board of Cooperative Educational Services (BOCES) was found to have violated Labor Law § 220 by failing to pay prevailing wages to employees on a lighting improvement project for the Auburn City School District. BOCES appealed, arguing that the Commissioner lacked jurisdiction due to the failure to file a timely notice of claim and adhere to the statute of limitations under Education Law § 3813. The Court of Appeals affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that prevailing wage enforcement proceedings under Labor Law § 220 vindicate a public interest, making the notice of claim and statute of limitations requirements of Education Law § 3813 inapplicable. The Court also rejected BOCES' argument that the employees' civil service classification exempted them from prevailing wage requirements.

Prevailing wagePublic worksLabor LawEducation LawNotice of claimStatute of limitationsPublic interest doctrineCivil serviceMunicipal contractsSchool district liability
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Marinen v. City of New York

Plaintiffs Kathleen Makinen and Jamie Nardini sued the City of New York, Commissioner Raymond Kelly, and Sergeant Daniel Sweeney for disability discrimination based on perceived alcoholism, violating the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). A jury found for the plaintiffs under the NYCHRL and awarded damages. Defendants filed Rule 50(b) and Rule 59 post-trial motions. The court partially granted the Rule 50(b) motion, vacating punitive damages against Commissioner Kelly, but denied all other Rule 50(b) claims and the entire Rule 59 motion. The decision upheld compensatory and punitive damages against Sergeant Sweeney, finding sufficient evidence of his malice or reckless indifference.

DiscriminationPerceived DisabilityAlcoholismNew York City Human Rights LawNew York State Human Rights LawAmericans with Disabilities ActPost-Trial MotionsRule 50Rule 59Punitive Damages
References
98
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 16, 1998

Stone v. Sweeney

Petitioners, public assistance recipients in a Work Experience Program (WEP), sought to compel the New York State Department of Labor (DOL) to allow their designated representative, the National Employment Law Project, Inc. (NELP), to be present during worksite inspections and complaint investigation conferences as per the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA). The Supreme Court denied their application and dismissed the petition. This judgment was subsequently affirmed. The court determined that DOL's refusal aligned with PESHA, which restricts 'authorized employee representatives' to employees and union representatives, thereby excluding NELP. This limitation was deemed a rational measure to prevent workplace disruption by outsiders and was not arbitrary, capricious, or a violation of equal protection clauses.

Public Employee Safety and Health ActWork Experience ProgramEmployee RepresentationWorkplace InspectionWorkplace SafetyAdministrative LawEqual ProtectionLabor LawSocial Services LawCPLR Article 78
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweeney v. Hevesi

Petitioner sought accidental disability retirement benefits after sustaining injuries in 1999 and 2000. Respondent Comptroller denied benefits for the 2000 incident, ruling it occurred during ordinary employment duties, and found the 1999 injury was not the sole cause of petitioner's incapacity. This Article 78 proceeding challenged the Comptroller's determination. The court upheld the Comptroller's decision, finding substantial evidence, including petitioner's own testimony on job duties and expert medical opinions, supported the findings. The determination was confirmed, and the petition dismissed.

Retirement benefitsAccidental disabilityCPLR article 78Comptroller determinationOrdinary employment dutiesMedical evidenceSubstantial evidenceHerniated discAlbany CountyDisability
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 25, 1996

Waterway Construction Corp. v. Sweeney

The Appellate Division unanimously confirmed the determination by the Commissioner of Labor from November 25, 1996. This determination found petitioner subcontractors willfully failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements on a public works project, leading to the disqualification of petitioner Waterway Construction Corp. from future public works contracts for five years. The court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding due process violations, including the substitution of a Hearing Officer and the inclusion of additional subcontract work. Substantial evidence was found to support the respondent's trade classifications and calculation of underpayment, which was based on the best available evidence due to the petitioners' inaccurate records. The court also affirmed the finding that petitioners, as experienced contractors, willfully violated the prevailing wage law.

Prevailing WagesPublic Works ProjectSubcontractor LiabilityWillful Wage ViolationDue Process RightsLabor Law § 220CPLR Article 78 ReviewUnderpayment CalculationEvidence SufficiencyAdministrative Determination
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Sweeney v. City of New York

Plaintiff Partnow, a dock builder, was injured in a slip and fall on a barge deck while working for Reicon, a marine construction contractor, at a site for the City of New York. He sued Reicon, Reinauer Transportation Companies, L.P. (vessel owner and Reicon's parent), and the City for Labor Law and LHWCA violations. Defendants Reicon and Reinauer moved for summary judgment, arguing LHWCA's exclusive remedy and a lack of vessel negligence. The court found genuine issues of material fact regarding Reinauer's employer status and its breach of "turnover duty" as a vessel owner by allegedly providing a barge with a defective nonskid coating. Consequently, the court denied dismissal for the LHWCA vessel negligence claims and the Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6) claims, while granting dismissal solely for the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim due to the absence of a gravity-related injury.

LHWCASummary Judgment MotionVessel Owner LiabilityLabor Law (New York State)Corporate Veil PiercingParent-Subsidiary RelationsMaritime NegligenceDock Builder InjuryBarge OperationsNon-Skid Coating Failure
References
30
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 02, 2004

Sweeney v. Purcell Constructuion Corp.

Plaintiffs appealed and cross-appealed an order from Supreme Court, Jefferson County, concerning damages for injuries from toxic mold exposure at their workplace. The court properly denied defendants' initial motion for summary judgment, rejecting the claim that Multiple Chemical Sensitivities (MCS) are not recognized, as plaintiffs alleged occupationally-induced asthma instead. The court also correctly denied plaintiffs' motions to preclude expert testimony due to waiver. However, the appellate court found the trial court erred in granting defendants' eve-of-trial motion to amend their answer and dismiss the complaint against individual defendant physicians based on the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy, deeming the motion untimely. Consequently, the order was modified to deny defendants' motion regarding Workers’ Compensation Law §11 and reinstate the complaint against the individual physicians, and as modified, affirmed without costs.

workers' compensation lawsummary judgmenttoxic mold exposureoccupational asthmaexpert testimonyamendment of pleadingexclusive remedytimeliness of motionmedical malpractice claimappellate review
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 36 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