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

State v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The Attorney-General of New York initiated an action against Consolidated Edison of New York (Con Ed) seeking civil damages and an injunction to enforce compliance with the Right to Know Law (Public Health Law art 48; Labor Law art 28). This law mandates employers to provide information and training to employees concerning toxic substances in the workplace. Con Ed moved to dismiss the action, presenting two main arguments: first, that the Attorney-General lacked authority to sue without a prior investigation and determination by the Department of Labor, and second, that primary jurisdiction over enforcement of the Right to Know Law rested with the Department of Labor and the Department of Health. The court denied Con Ed's motion on both counts, ruling that Labor Law § 882 (1) unambiguously grants the Attorney-General the authority to bring such actions without a prerequisite administrative investigation. Furthermore, the court found that the doctrine of primary jurisdiction did not apply, as the administrative agencies had not yet promulgated comprehensive regulations to enforce the law, leaving a regulatory void that the judiciary was empowered to address to protect employee rights.

Right to Know LawToxic SubstancesEmployee InformationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationPrimary JurisdictionAdministrative LawEnforcement AuthorityLabor LawPublic Health Law
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jones v. District Attorney's Office of New York

Thomas Jones, currently incarcerated, filed an Article 78 proceeding to vacate the denial of his FOIL request by the District Attorney’s Office of the County of New York (DANY). Jones sought a trial verdict sheet from his 2000 conviction for conspiracy and assault. DANY denied the request, stating Judiciary Law § 255, which Jones cited, applies only to court clerks, not district attorneys. The court affirmed DANY's denial, ruling that district attorneys are not clerks of the court, and also found Jones's claims to be time-barred under the four-month statute of limitations for Article 78 proceedings. The petition was consequently denied and dismissed with prejudice.

FOIL RequestVerdict SheetArticle 78 ProceedingStatute of LimitationsDistrict AttorneyCourt ClerkJudiciary LawPenal LawCriminal ConspiracyAssault
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State National Organization for Women v. Terry

This opinion addresses a motion by the plaintiffs, New York State NOW, for a supplemental award of attorneys' fees. The extensive litigation, dubbed Terry I through V, involved efforts to enjoin defendants from obstructing access to abortion clinics, alleging violations of federal and New York civil rights laws. Key issues included the imposition and nature of contempt sanctions, and appeals concerning the application of Supreme Court precedents like Bray and Bagwell on § 1985(3) claims and civil versus criminal contempt. The court granted the motion, affirming plaintiffs' status as prevailing parties in defending prior fee awards and contempt sanctions. It also directed a re-evaluation of attorney hourly rates based on average experience over the course of the protracted litigation.

Attorneys' FeesCivil Rights LitigationContempt SanctionsAbortion AccessInjunctionsPrevailing PartyAppellate ReviewFederal Civil ProcedureMotion PracticeLitigation Costs
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department

Petitioners, the New York Times Company and Jim Dwyer, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking the disclosure of records from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), related to the events of September 11, 2001. Their request included oral histories of FDNY personnel and radio communications. The FDNY denied parts of the request, citing exemptions for law enforcement purposes, intra-agency materials, and personal privacy. The court ruled that the FDNY failed to demonstrate the applicability of the law enforcement exemption. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of factual portions of the oral histories, the 911 tapes and transcripts of family members who waived privacy, and non-intra-agency parts of operator, dispatcher, and unit communications, while denying petitioners' request for attorneys' fees.

Freedom of Information LawFOILPublic RecordsSeptember 11World Trade CenterFDNYOral HistoriesRadio CommunicationsPrivacy ExemptionLaw Enforcement Exemption
References
14
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 03395 [217 AD3d 1237]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 22, 2023

Matter of Cagino v. New York State Div. of Human Rights

Petitioner Paul F. Cagino appealed the dismissal of his application to review a New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) determination. SDHR found no probable cause regarding Cagino's claim that the Office of the Attorney General (OAG) engaged in retaliatory employment practices. Cagino, a former OAG employee, alleged that OAG's statements in court papers during a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) proceeding constituted adverse employment action. The Appellate Division affirmed the dismissal, ruling that OAG's statements were legitimate defensive measures in litigation, not unlawful retaliation. The court concluded that SDHR's no probable cause finding was rational and not arbitrary or capricious.

RetaliationDiscriminationFreedom of Information Law (FOIL)Adverse Employment ActionHuman Rights LawProbable CauseAppellate ReviewDefensive LitigationPublic Officers LawEmployment Law
References
20
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 06627
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 04, 2018

Mack v. City of New York

Plaintiff Ivy J. Mack, a secretary for the New York County District Attorney, was injured in a trip and fall incident at work, for which she received Workers' Compensation benefits paid by the City of New York. She subsequently filed a lawsuit against the City. The Supreme Court, New York County, granted the defendants' motion to amend their answer to assert a Workers' Compensation exclusivity defense and dismissed the complaint. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this decision, finding that employees of the District Attorney's office are considered employees of the City for Workers' Compensation purposes. This makes the exclusivity provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law applicable, thus barring the plaintiff's lawsuit.

Workers' Compensation ExclusivityTrip and FallGovernment EmploymentAffirmative DefenseLeave to AmendMunicipal LiabilityDistrict Attorney's OfficePersonal InjuryAppellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03468 [161 AD3d 132]
Regular Panel Decision
May 10, 2018

Matter of Machado

This case involves reciprocal discipline against attorney Esmeralda Machado. The Attorney Grievance Committee for the First Judicial Department sought to discipline Machado based on a New Jersey Supreme Court order permanently barring her from appearing pro hac vice due to unauthorized practice of law, dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice. Machado had repeatedly failed to pay required fees, continued to practice in New Jersey despite her pro hac vice admission terminating, misused another attorney's letterhead, and made false statements in a divorce proceeding. The New York Appellate Division, First Department, granted the motion for reciprocal discipline, suspending Machado from the practice of law in New York for two years, effective June 11, 2018. The court found her misconduct in New Jersey would also constitute misconduct in New York.

Attorney MisconductUnauthorized Practice of LawReciprocal DisciplineProfessional EthicsSuspensionNew Jersey Disciplinary ProceedingsFalse StatementsFraudDishonestyAppellate Division First Department
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State Ass'n of Realtors, Inc. v. Shaffer

Plaintiffs New York State Association of Realtors, Inc. and Clifford Hall moved the Court for an order granting them attorneys’ fees and costs, together with post-judgment interest pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983 and 1988. This motion followed a successful appeal to the Second Circuit, which reversed a prior District Court decision, finding a New York State nonsolicitation regulation unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The defendant argued for a 50% reduction in fees, citing the plaintiffs' partial success. However, Judge Spatt of the Eastern District of New York found the overall relief obtained by the plaintiffs to be significant and approved the requested attorneys' fees and expenses, totaling $81,196.27.

Attorneys' FeesCivil Rights LitigationFirst Amendment RightsCommercial SpeechReal Estate LawNonsolicitation RegulationsBlockbustingLodestar MethodSummary JudgmentAppellate Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Michael Mack sued The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and Dr. Scott Bergman for racial discrimination, hostile work environment, and wrongful termination under 42 U.S.C. sections 1981 and 1983, and New York Executive Law section 296. Mack, an African-American employee, alleged his supervisor, Iannacone, and Dr. Bergman subjected him to racial jokes, disparate treatment, and a hostile work environment. Mack was terminated after failing a drug test and refusing to provide a second urine sample, which he claimed was racially motivated. The defendants moved for summary judgment. The Court granted summary judgment in favor of the defendants, dismissing all claims, finding that Mack failed to demonstrate a municipal policy or custom for the Port Authority's liability and did not provide sufficient evidence to support his claims of wrongful termination or a racially hostile work environment. Additionally, state law claims were dismissed as New York anti-discrimination laws do not apply to the bi-state Port Authority.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Prats v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Plaintiff, an assistant mechanic for AWL Industries, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while inspecting an air-conditioning unit at the World Trade Center, a project contracted by defendant Port Authority of New York and New Jersey. The District Court initially granted summary judgment to the defendant on the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, leading to a certified question to the Court of Appeals regarding whether inspections of construction work fall under the statute's purview. The Court, distinguishing the case from Martinez v City of New York, held in the affirmative, emphasizing that the plaintiff's inspection was integral to and contemporaneous with broader building alteration work, not mere routine maintenance. The decision affirmed that such activities, performed by a mechanic under a construction contract, are protected under Labor Law § 240 (1).

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction WorkBuilding AlterationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationCertified QuestionNew York Court of AppealsInspection ActivitySummary Judgment Reversal
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 11,600 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