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

Okeke v. New York & Presbyterian Hospital

Plaintiffs Ifeanyichukwu E. Okeke, Jerry Baglione, Iqbal Bajwa, Adel Mahmoud, Naeem U. Qureshi, and Abel De La Trinidad sued The New York and Presbyterian Hospital for age discrimination and hostile work environment under federal, state, and city laws. A jury found the Hospital liable on NYCHRL claims for age-related termination, denial of training, and hostile work environment, but not under federal and state law. The Hospital moved for judgment as a matter of law, a new trial, or remittitur. The Court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, granted in part and denied in part the motion for a new trial (specifically granting a new trial on the NYCHRL termination claims), and denied the motion for remittitur as moot. The hostile work environment claim under NYCHRL was sustained.

Age DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentNYCHRLADEAMixed-Motive DiscriminationJury VerdictRule 50 MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturDenial of Training
References
32
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 05688
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 15, 2025

Matter of Sahara Constr. Corp. v. New York City Off. of Admin. Trials & Hearings

Sahara Construction Corp. challenged a determination by the New York City Office of Administrative Trials and Hearings (OATH) that upheld civil penalties and a restitution order for violations related to a home improvement project. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reviewed the CPLR article 78 proceeding. The court confirmed OATH's determination, finding that the imposed civil penalties of $5,000 and restitution of $230,266.63 were not disproportionate and fell within statutory guidelines. The Court also affirmed the denial of the petitioner's motions to dismiss and compel discovery, concluding they were not arbitrary and capricious. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Home Improvement ContractorsCivil PenaltiesRestitution AwardAdministrative Code ViolationsCPLR Article 78Judicial ReviewAppellate ReviewAbuse of DiscretionSense of FairnessAdministrative Summons
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Jo v. JPMC Specialty Mortg., LLC

Mee Jin-Jo (now deceased and represented by her daughter Billian Jo) filed a pro se lawsuit against JPMC Specialty Mortgage, LLC, alleging improper retention of property after her eviction. Following a jury verdict of "no cause of action," Plaintiff filed a motion for a new trial under Rule 59 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The Court addressed Plaintiff's grievances concerning evidentiary rulings, consistency between in limine rulings and trial decisions, the presence of a corporate representative, proper service of discovery documents, opportunity to review deposition transcripts, judicial conduct, and the admissibility of new evidence and lay opinion testimony. The Court denied the motion, concluding that Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that a new trial was warranted.

Motion for New TrialRule 59 FRCPEvidentiary RulingsJury VerdictHarmless ErrorCorporate RepresentativeDeposition TranscriptLay Opinion TestimonyFederal Rules of EvidenceJudicial Discretion
References
50
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 11, 2008

Brownrigg v. New York City Housing Authority

The plaintiff, an elevator mechanic, was injured by a falling tool while repairing an elevator in a shared shaftway. He sued the New York City Housing Authority, alleging violations of Labor Law sections 200, 241 (6), and 241-a, primarily focusing on the lack of a vertical barrier. At the second trial on liability, the court directed a verdict for the plaintiff based on a Labor Law § 241-a violation for failing to install horizontal planking, despite the defendant's objection that planking would impede the other operational elevator. The appellate court reversed, finding the trial court improperly resolved factual disputes regarding the feasibility of planking and the worker's location, and remitted the case for a new trial on liability. The prior damages award of $660,000 will be reinstated if the defendant is found liable after the new trial.

Personal InjuryLabor LawElevator ShaftwayDirected VerdictReversalNew TrialProximate CauseStatutory InterpretationAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Safety
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1989

Assante v. City of New York

Salvatore Assante, a New York City Department of Sanitation worker, sustained injuries in 1982 when his vehicle struck an obstruction. The plaintiffs initially alleged vehicle safety device failure and the City of New York's failure to maintain a safe road. During the 1988 trial, plaintiffs attempted to introduce a new "second collision" theory, claiming injuries were exacerbated by the absence of a seat belt, and moved to amend their pleadings. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied this motion due to prejudicial delay. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amendment, as the defendants would have been prejudiced by the late introduction of a new factual theory.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictPleadings AmendmentNew Theory of LiabilityPrejudiceDiscretion of CourtAppellate ReviewCPLR 3025(c)Safety DevicesSeat Belt
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Smith v. City of New York

Charles Smith, acting pro se, filed a civil rights action under 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985, and 1986 against the City of New York and several of its departments (city defendants), and the Legal Aid Society of New York. Smith alleges constitutional violations related to his arrest, incarceration, and trial for his wife's murder, including false arrest, battery, and unconstitutional searches. He also asserts pendent state claims such as legal malpractice against Legal Aid. Legal Aid moved to dismiss all claims or for summary judgment, arguing it is not a state actor for Section 1983 purposes and that conspiracy claims were not sufficiently pled. The city defendants moved to consolidate this action with two prior cases in the Southern District of New York. The court granted in part and denied in part Legal Aid's motion, dismissing federal claims but denying dismissal of the state law legal malpractice claim. The court denied consolidation with cases in another district but, sua sponte, ordered the transfer of the entire action, including the remaining malpractice claim, to the Southern District of New York for consolidation with the related cases, finding it would serve the convenience of parties and witnesses and promote judicial efficiency.

Civil Rights ViolationSection 1983Section 1985Section 1986Legal MalpracticeMotion to DismissSummary JudgmentTransfer of VenueConsolidationState Actor Doctrine
References
54
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Kelleher v. New York State Trooper Fearon

Plaintiff Eugene Kelleher brought suit under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against Defendant Denzil Fearon, a New York State Trooper, for damages resulting from an unlawful strip search. A jury found Fearon liable and awarded Kelleher $125,000 in compensatory damages for emotional distress. Defendant moved for judgment as a matter of law, or alternatively, a new trial or remittitur. The court denied the motion for judgment as a matter of law, upholding the jury's finding that Fearon was not entitled to qualified immunity, as there was sufficient evidence to infer he lacked objective reasonable suspicion for the strip search. However, the court granted the motion for remittitur, reducing the jury's award to $25,000, citing a lack of corroborating medical evidence for Kelleher's emotional distress.

Strip SearchQualified ImmunityExcessive ForceEmotional Distress DamagesRemittiturJury AwardCivil RightsAutomobile PresumptionProbable CauseFalse Arrest
References
24
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 06241
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 23, 2017

Acosta v. City of New York

The plaintiff, Pedro Acosta, initiated an action against the City of New York and several police officers for false arrest and battery. Following a first trial where the plaintiff prevailed, the City appealed, resulting in a new trial specifically on the battery claim. A second trial was conducted, and the jury again found in favor of the plaintiff. The Supreme Court subsequently issued an amended judgment based on this verdict. The City appealed this amended judgment, but the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the decision. The appellate court concluded that the jury's verdict was consistent with a fair interpretation of the evidence and that the Supreme Court's evidentiary rulings and jury instructions were appropriate.

False ArrestBatteryPolice MisconductJury VerdictWeight of EvidenceAppellate ReviewEvidentiary RulingsJury ChargeSummation LimitsCivil Procedure
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York State National Organization for Women v. Cuomo

This action addresses constitutional violations by the New York State Division of Human Rights (SDHR) for its delayed processing of discrimination complaints. Plaintiffs, including NOW, moved to amend their complaint to add Governor Pataki and Commissioner Mercado in their personal capacities and to include a third subclass for administrative convenience dismissals. NOW also sought to supplement its complaint with claims against Commissioner Mercado for new intake procedures and a preliminary injunction to halt their enforcement. The court affirmed the magistrate judge's recommendations, granting all of plaintiffs' motions, finding a likelihood of success on the merits and irreparable harm to complainants due to SDHR's ambiguous and erratically applied new rules. A full bench trial is scheduled for June 8, 1998.

DiscriminationDue ProcessEqual ProtectionAdministrative DelayHuman Rights LawClass ActionPreliminary InjunctionMotion to AmendMotion to SupplementState Agency
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 16, 2003

Bonanno v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

This case involves a judgment from the Supreme Court, New York County, concerning damages awarded to plaintiffs Anthony Bonanno and Maria Bonanno. The jury initially awarded Anthony Bonanno $200,000 for past pain and suffering and $300,000 for future pain and suffering, and Maria Bonanno $20,000 for loss of consortium. The court unanimously modified the judgment by vacating the award for future pain and suffering but affirmed the other awards. The matter was remanded for a new trial on future pain and suffering damages unless the plaintiffs agree to reduce the award to $250,000. The court deemed the jury's award for future pain and suffering excessive when compared to similar cases involving comparable knee injuries and prognoses.

DamagesPain and SufferingLoss of ConsortiumJury VerdictExcessive AwardRemandNew TrialStipulationKnee InjuriesHearsay
References
9
Showing 1-10 of 12,933 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