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. 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

New York City Transit Authority v. New York State Public Employment Relations Board

The New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge a June 16, 2009, determination by the New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB). PERB's determination reversed an earlier administrative law judge's decision, finding that the NYCTA had committed an improper labor practice by unilaterally implementing new standards for off-duty secondary employment without negotiating with the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100. PERB directed the NYCTA to make whole certain employees and subsequently filed a cross-petition to enforce its order. The court found that PERB's determination was supported by substantial evidence, noting that an employer's restriction on nonworking time is generally a mandatory subject of negotiations under the Taylor Law. Consequently, the court confirmed PERB's determination, denied the NYCTA's petition, dismissed the proceeding on the merits, and granted PERB's cross-petition for enforcement of its remedial order.

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Racing Ass'n v. State of New York Racing & Wagering Board

The New York Racing Association (NYRA) filed a CPLR article 78 application seeking to exempt competitive bidding policy documents from disclosure under the New York Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), citing Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d) regarding trade secrets and potential substantial competitive injury. NYRA challenged a determination by the State of New York Racing and Wagering Board (NYSRWB) that had partially denied this exemption for certain approved policy changes. The court, applying the Encore test, found that even a summarized release of these documents would constitute a disclosure of proprietary trade information. Such disclosure, especially to the press, was deemed likely to cause significant competitive disadvantage to NYRA, impacting its franchise renewal and bankruptcy reorganization efforts. Consequently, the court granted NYRA's application, vacating the NYSRWB's prior determination and ruling that the documents are exempt from FOIL disclosure.

FOILFreedom of Information LawPublic Officers LawTrade SecretsCompetitive BiddingProprietary InformationCommercial EnterpriseSubstantial InjuryRacing IndustryRegulatory Board
References
14
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. 2025 NY Slip Op 25014
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2025

New York State Pub. Empl. Relations Bd. v. New York City Off. of Collective Bargaining

The New York State Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) initiated a special proceeding against the New York City Office of Collective Bargaining (OCB) and related boards. PERB alleged that OCB's ongoing implementation of its contract-bar rule, which restricts post-expiration-of-contract decertification, was not substantially equivalent to the state's Taylor Law. OCB moved to dismiss the petition as untimely. The Supreme Court, New York County, denied the motion to dismiss PERB's declaratory judgment claim, finding it either a continuing violation or subject to a six-year statute of limitations that was not yet expired. However, the court dismissed PERB's accompanying Article 78 cause of action as untimely. Additionally, motions to intervene by several nonparties were denied, but their requests to appear as amici curiae were granted.

Public Employment Relations BoardCollective BargainingTaylor LawCivil Service LawDeclaratory JudgmentStatute of LimitationsContinuing Violation DoctrineContract Bar RuleDecertification PetitionNew York City Office of Collective Bargaining
References
37
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Port Authority v. American Warehousing of New York, Inc.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey initiated a commercial holdover proceeding against American Warehousing of New York, Inc. (AWNY) to evict them from Pier 7 at the Brooklyn Marine Terminal. AWNY cross-moved to stay the proceeding, arguing lack of jurisdiction due to federal maritime law, exclusive regulatory oversight by the Federal Maritime Commission (FMC) under the Shipping Act, and the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. The court rejected AWNY's arguments regarding maritime jurisdiction and primary jurisdiction, finding the lease was not a maritime contract and the issues were within the court's competence. However, to prevent inconsistent adjudications and judicial waste, the court granted AWNY's cross-motion, staying the holdover proceeding pending the FMC's determination on AWNY's complaint regarding the Port Authority's alleged Shipping Act violations.

Commercial LeaseHoldover ProceedingMaritime LawFederal PreemptionShipping ActPrimary JurisdictionStay OrderIntertwined ActionsReal PropertyLease Dispute
References
34
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verizon New York Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission

Verizon New York Inc. commenced a special proceeding against the New York State Public Service Commission and other respondents. Verizon sought to overturn a determination allowing public disclosure of certain documents, which Verizon claimed were trade secrets or confidential commercial information, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The documents in question related to Verizon's network costs and its methods and procedures for its wireless service, Verizon Voice Link (WL). The court reviewed the Secretary's and RAO's determinations, which found some information to be trade secrets but still required a showing of 'substantial injury' for exemption. The court ruled that once information is deemed a trade secret under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d), no further showing of substantial competitive injury is required for exemption. Consequently, the court granted in part the petition, exempting specific cost information and several M&P documents from disclosure, while denying exemption for three M&P documents.

FOIL ExemptionTrade Secret ProtectionConfidential Commercial InformationPublic Officers Law § 87 (2) (d)Substantial Competitive InjuryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Determination ReviewCPLR Article 78Wireless ServicesCost Information Disclosure
References
47
Showing 1-10 of 9,674 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