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

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. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Curtin v. PORT AUTHORITY OF NEW YORK AND NEW JER.

The plaintiff, Curtin, filed an action in New York Supreme Court, Bronx County, alleging personal injuries due to negligence by Delta Airlines, Inc. and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey during an emergency evacuation. The defendants removed the case to federal court, asserting federal question jurisdiction based on the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (FAA) and its implicit preemption of state law aviation safety standards. Curtin moved to remand the case, arguing that federal question or diversity jurisdiction was lacking and the FAA did not preempt state negligence claims. The court denied Curtin's motion, concluding that the comprehensive federal regulatory scheme for aviation safety, the purpose of the FAA, and its legislative history indicate that the standard of care is a matter of federal law, thus establishing federal question jurisdiction.

Federal Aviation ActPreemptionAviation SafetyState Law NegligenceFederal Question JurisdictionRemovalEmergency EvacuationAirline Deregulation ActSaving ClauseField Preemption
References
31
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 07, 1993

Aviles v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Jose Aviles, a New York domiciliary, sustained a personal injury while working at Newark International Airport, operated by a bistate agency. The central legal question is whether New York's strict liability scaffolding law (Labor Law § 240) or New Jersey's ordinary care common law applies. Under New York's choice of law rules, an interest analysis is invoked due to the defendant's dual domicile and the plaintiff sharing a New York domicile. The court distinguishes between 'rules of conduct' and 'loss allocation' functions of Labor Law § 240. Given that the plaintiff sought to apply the law as a rule of conduct and loss allocation was not a primary issue, the court concluded that the less stringent law of the situs (New Jersey) should apply. Consequently, the Supreme Court's order was reversed, and the complaint, based solely on New York's scaffolding law, was dismissed.

Choice of LawScaffolding LawLabor LawStrict LiabilityPersonal InjuryLex Loci DelictiLoss AllocationRules of ConductNew York LawNew Jersey Law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baron v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Plaintiffs (Baron, Diaz, Toole, Han), former employees of the bi-state Port Authority (PA), filed separate complaints against PA and several individual defendants, alleging employment discrimination based on age and sex, deprivation of contract/property/due process rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and violations of Title VII, ADEA, New York Human Rights Law, New Jersey Law Against Discrimination, and common law breach of contract. The court consolidated the cases and heard arguments on defendants' motion for partial summary judgment. The memorandum opinion specifically addresses the Title VII, ADEA, and related state law claims. The defendants argued that the Title VII and ADEA claims were time-barred because plaintiffs failed to file with the EEOC within the 180-day statutory limit, as the bi-state nature of PA meant New York's anti-discrimination agency (DHR) lacked jurisdiction, thus invalidating the 300-day extended filing period. The court agreed, finding that bi-state agencies like PA are not unilaterally subject to the laws of one state unless explicitly amended by both states, and that DHR had previously declined jurisdiction over PA. Consequently, the court granted the defendants' motion for partial summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiffs' Title VII, ADEA, New York HRL, and New Jersey LAD claims.

Age DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment DiscriminationSummary JudgmentTitle VIIADEABi-state AgencyState Human Rights LawFederal JurisdictionTimeliness
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Duff v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Claimant, a property manager for the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey, was scheduled to work at One World Trade Center on September 11, 2001, but remained at home. After learning of the attack, he voluntarily traveled to the site, was present when the second tower fell, and subsequently assisted as a volunteer in rescue efforts, sustaining psychological injuries. His initial claim for workers’ compensation benefits was established, but the Workers’ Compensation Board later reversed these decisions, finding his injury not work-related. Claimant appealed the Board's decisions, arguing that the employer's objection was untimely and that the Board erred in its finding. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board has discretionary authority to review untimely applications and that substantial evidence supported the finding that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of his employment.

September 11 AttacksWorld Trade CenterPsychological InjuryPost-traumatic Stress DisorderVolunteer ActionsWork-RelatednessCompensability of InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board ReviewTimeliness of ObjectionDiscretionary Authority
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Waisome v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Felix Waisome, along with other Black applicants, initiated a class action against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc., alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The plaintiffs claimed that the Port Authority's promotion selection criteria for police sergeants had an adverse, discriminatory impact on Black applicants. Waisome sought class certification and partial summary judgment on liability, while the Port Authority cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted class certification but ultimately sided with the defendants, concluding that the statistical disparities in selection rates were insufficient, both in practical and legal terms, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory impact. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate ImpactStatistical SignificanceSummary JudgmentPolice PromotionsRule 23Rule 56
References
15
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 01821 [170 AD3d 927]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 13, 2019

Zielinski v. New Jersey Tr. Corp.

In January 2014, Grzegorz Zielinski was injured at work when struck by a bus driven by Niurka G. Diaz. Both Zielinski and Diaz were employees of Hudson Transit Lines, Inc. (HTL), which leased the bus from New Jersey Transit Corporation (NJT). Zielinski applied for and received benefits under the Workers' Compensation Law, subsequently commencing an action against Diaz, NJT, and HTL. The Supreme Court granted the transit defendants' motion for summary judgment, finding that the Workers' Compensation Law provided Zielinski's exclusive remedy against HTL and Diaz, and the Graves Amendment protected NJT. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that the defendants had established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law, and the plaintiff failed to raise a triable issue of fact to the contrary.

Workers' CompensationSummary JudgmentGraves AmendmentVicarious LiabilityExclusive RemedyMotor Vehicle AccidentEmployment LawAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryLease Agreement
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 14, 1998

New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance v. Steckert

Plaintiff New Jersey Manufacturers Insurance Company mistakenly paid workers' compensation benefits to Robert Steckert, believing him to be an employee of Cohen Express Corp., when he actually worked for Longacre Truck Leasing Corp. Steckert, injured in an accident, settled his New York tort action against Cohen and Ragoo for $850,000. Plaintiff sought a lien against the settlement proceeds, relying on New Jersey law, despite New York Workers' Compensation Law § 29 (1-a) prohibiting such a lien for first-party benefits. The motion court initially granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, applying New Jersey law based on a mistaken choice of law analysis. The appellate court reversed, finding New York law governed, which bars such liens and limits recovery for first-party benefits to mandatory arbitration, thereby denying the plaintiff's motion and granting the Steckert defendants' cross-motion.

Workers' CompensationNo-Fault InsuranceLienSubrogationChoice of LawSummary JudgmentReversed JudgmentAppellate ReviewInterstate ConflictInsurance Coverage
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 22,873 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