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

F.H. Cobb Co. v. New York State Teamsters Conference Pension & Retirement Fund

F.H. Cobb Co., a subsidiary of Super Food Services Inc., filed an action seeking a declaration of non-liability under the Multiemployer Pension Plan Amendments Act of 1980 (MPPAA) concerning withdrawal liability to the New York State Teamsters Conference Pension and Retirement Fund. The MPPAA retroactively imposed liability for employers withdrawing on or after April 29, 1980. F.H. Cobb had ceased its primary wholesale distribution business by March 8, 1980, and retained a minimal workforce for only phase-out activities until May 16, 1980, with final pension contributions in May 1980. The court analyzed whether this constituted a 'complete withdrawal' prior to the MPPAA's effective date, concluding that the phase-out work did not negate the earlier cessation of covered operations. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment for the plaintiffs, declaring F.H. Cobb's non-liability under the MPPAA's withdrawal provisions.

MPPAAwithdrawal liabilitymultiemployer pension plancessation of operationssummary judgmentretroactive legislationpension contributionsphase-out workemployer obligationsplan funding
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F.O. ex rel. O. v. New York City Department of Education

Plaintiffs F.O. and E.O., on behalf of their minor child Brendan O., sued the New York City Department of Education under the IDEA and New York State Education Law. They sought to reverse a State Review Officer (SRO) decision that had overturned an Impartial Hearing Officer (IHO) decision, which ordered the DOE to reimburse tuition for Brendan's private school placement at the Rebecca School for the 2010-2011 school year. Brendan, diagnosed with Myasthenia Gravis and Autism, required special education services, and the dispute centered on the adequacy of the DOE's proposed IEP (a 12:1:4 classroom) versus the Rebecca School's program. The District Court granted the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment regarding tuition reimbursement, finding the SRO's decision inadequately reasoned and deferring to the IHO's conclusion that the DOE's IEP was inappropriate and the Rebecca School was an appropriate unilateral placement. The court ordered the DOE to reimburse $92,100 for Brendan's tuition but denied the plaintiffs' request for declaratory relief concerning a 1:1 health paraprofessional on procedural grounds.

Individuals with Disabilities Education ActSpecial EducationFree Appropriate Public EducationIndividualized Educational ProgramTuition ReimbursementAutism Spectrum DisorderMyasthenia GravisImpartial Hearing OfficerState Review OfficerUnilateral Private Placement
References
41
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F. Garofalo Electric Co. v. New York University

This case involves an electrical contractor, F. Garofalo Electric Co., Inc. (FGE), and New York University (NYU) in a dispute regarding electrical work on a construction project. FGE sued NYU for payment and damages due to delays, while NYU counterclaimed for costs to complete the work FGE allegedly failed to perform. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to NYU, dismissing FGE's claims and awarding NYU on its counterclaims. On appeal, this decision was modified: the appellate court denied NYU's motion for summary judgment concerning FGE's breach of contract claim and NYU's counterclaims, citing triable issues of fact regarding FGE's substantial performance. However, the dismissal of FGE's second cause of action for extracontractual work was affirmed due to a lack of required documentation.

Construction ContractBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentSubstantial PerformanceAppellate ReviewMaterial Issues of FactContractual ObligationsScheduling DisputesElectrical ContractorCounterclaims
References
12
Case No. CV 86-1336
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 06, 1987

Brown v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiff Donald Brown, a Port Authority Police lieutenant, initiated litigation against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and several officials. Brown alleged that he faced disciplinary action, including a counseling memorandum, after circulating a memo that criticized the defendants' inadequate anti-terrorist preparations at John F. Kennedy International Airport. He claimed these actions violated his First Amendment right to free speech and caused him severe psychological stress. Defendants moved to dismiss the amended complaint, arguing that Brown's speech was not a matter of public concern under established Supreme Court precedents like Pickering and Connick. Brown cross-moved for summary judgment. The Court denied both motions, finding that the subject of Brown's memorandum, concerning public safety at a major international airport, could be considered a matter of public concern. Furthermore, the Court noted that disputed material facts, such as the actual impact of the memorandum on office harmony and discipline, precluded granting summary judgment to the plaintiff.

First AmendmentPublic Employee SpeechRetaliationMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentPolice DepartmentTerrorism PreparednessWhistleblower ProtectionFreedom of SpeechPort Authority
References
13
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 05, 2016

Leo v. Lomma

This case addresses consolidated wrongful death actions resulting from a catastrophic crane collapse in Manhattan in 2008, which led to the deaths of Donald Leo and Kurtaj. The plaintiffs successfully sued New York Crane & Equipment Corp., J.F. Lomma, Inc., and James F. Lomma, with the jury finding negligence and piercing the corporate veil to hold Lomma personally liable for prioritizing profit over safety in procuring a defective crane bearing. On appeal, the court affirmed the liability findings and the corporate veil piercing, while also upholding the preclusion of a defense expert's testimony. However, the appellate court deemed the jury's substantial awards for preimpact terror, pain and suffering, and punitive damages to be excessive. Consequently, it directed a new trial on these damages unless the plaintiffs agreed to stipulated reductions, otherwise affirming the judgments with modifications.

Wrongful DeathCrane CollapseCorporate Veil PiercingPunitive DamagesExcessive DamagesExpert Witness PreclusionNegligenceReckless ConductConstruction AccidentPreimpact Terror
References
34
Case No. 574 F.3d 24
Regular Panel Decision

Zakrzewska v. NEW SCHOOL

Dominika Zakrzewska filed a diversity suit against KwangWen Pan and The New School, alleging sexual harassment and retaliation under the New York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL). The United States District Court for the Southern District of New York initially considered the employer's liability, assuming the Faragher-Ellerth defense might apply. The District Court then found the Faragher-Ellerth defense inconsistent with the plain language of NYCHRL 8-107 (13) (b), which appears to impose vicarious liability on employers for discriminatory acts of managers or supervisors regardless of the employer's knowledge or corrective actions. The District Court certified an interlocutory appeal to the Second Circuit regarding the applicability of the Faragher-Ellerth defense under the NYCHRL. The Second Circuit, in turn, certified this question to the New York Court of Appeals. The New York Court of Appeals, affirming the District Court's textual interpretation, concluded that the Faragher-Ellerth defense does not apply to sexual harassment and retaliation claims under NYCHRL 8-107 because the local law imposes strict liability for acts of managers and supervisors and provides for mitigation of penalties rather than a complete defense.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationEmployer LiabilityVicarious LiabilityFaragher-Ellerth DefenseNew York City Human Rights Law (NYCHRL)New York Administrative CodeStatutory InterpretationSummary JudgmentCertified Question
References
13
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
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 04678 [173 AD3d 831]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 12, 2019

Daeira v. Genting N.Y., LLC

Ricky Daeira and his wife sued Genting New York, LLC, New York Raceway Association, Inc., and D'Amato Builders & Advisors, LLC, after Ricky Daeira was injured by falling through glass flooring at a construction site, alleging negligence and Labor Law violations. D'Amato Builders & Advisors, LLC subsequently initiated a third-party action against A.F.I. Glass & Architectural Metal, Inc. The Supreme Court denied the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on liability and dismissed Labor Law claims against the defendants. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, denying summary judgment to New York Raceway Association, Inc., on the common-law negligence and contribution claims, while affirming the remainder of the order. The court concluded that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate that the injured plaintiff was an 'employee' under the Labor Law provisions. It also found that D'Amato Builders & Advisors, LLC, failed to establish its lack of negligence, and New York Raceway Association, Inc., presented contradictory evidence regarding its control over the worksite, precluding summary judgment on the negligence claims.

Personal InjuryConstruction AccidentLabor LawSummary JudgmentCommon-Law NegligenceContributionIndemnificationThird-Party ActionAppellate ReviewWorkplace Safety
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 9,547 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