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

Buckley v. City of New York

This case addresses the continued applicability of the fellow-servant rule in New York. It consolidates two appeals: Buckley v City of New York, involving a police officer shot by a co-worker, and Lawrence v City of New York, where a firefighter was injured by a fellow firefighter. Both plaintiffs secured jury verdicts against the City based on vicarious liability, which the City challenged under the fellow-servant rule. The court reviewed the historical origins and rationales of the rule, noting its significant curtailment by workers' compensation legislation and prior judicial criticism. Ultimately, the court found that the fellow-servant rule no longer serves a valid purpose and imposes an unjust hardship, leading to its complete abolition in New York. The Appellate Division's orders affirming the judgments against the City were affirmed.

abolition of fellow-servant rulerespondeat superiorvicarious liabilityemployer liabilityco-employee negligencepolice officer injuryfirefighter injurycommon law developmentjudicial precedenttort law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Department of Environmental Protection v. New York City Civil Service Commission

The New York City Department of Environmental Protection (DEP) filed an Article 78 petition seeking to annul a determination by the New York City Civil Service Commission. The Commission had reversed an Administrative Law Judge's decision which sustained misconduct charges against respondent John Daly for striking a co-worker and threatening him. DEP argued the Commission improperly reassessed witness credibility, violating its mandate under Civil Service Law § 76 (2). The court confirmed the Commission's determination, finding that despite an improper transfer under CPLR 7804 (g), the Commission's decision was not arbitrary given the contradictory testimony, thus dismissing the petition.

Administrative LawArticle 78Judicial ReviewCivil Service LawPublic Employee MisconductCredibility AssessmentAgency DeterminationAppellate CourtArbitrary and Capricious StandardDue Process
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Roberts v. New York City Office of Collective Bargaining

This case concerns an appeal regarding the New York City Fire Department's "zero tolerance" policy, which mandates automatic termination for EMS employees who fail or refuse drug tests. Unions representing these employees argued that this policy should be subject to mandatory collective bargaining. The New York City Board of Collective Bargaining and a lower court ruled against the unions, asserting that the policy falls under management's disciplinary rights. The appellate court affirmed this decision, holding that disciplinary actions for EMS personnel are the sole province of the Fire Commissioner under the New York City Charter, and that deterring illegal drug use by EMS workers is critical to public safety and the FDNY's core mission.

Public SafetyEmergency Medical Services (EMS)Drug Testing PolicyZero ToleranceCollective BargainingMandatory BargainingNew York City Fire Department (FDNY)Fire CommissionerDisciplinary AuthorityNew York City Charter
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

City of New York v. Lead Industries Ass'n

This appellate decision addresses an action brought by the City of New York, the New York City Housing Authority, and the New York City Health and Hospitals Corporation against lead paint manufacturers and their trade association. The plaintiffs seek indemnity and restitution for costs incurred in abating lead paint hazards in their buildings. The court reverses lower court orders that had dismissed these indemnity and restitution claims, clarifying that such causes of action are independent of underlying time-barred tort claims and accrue when loss is suffered by the party seeking indemnity. The opinion emphasizes that these equitable remedies aim to prevent unjust enrichment and ensure that the party primarily responsible for the hazard bears the financial burden. Additionally, the court addresses jurisdictional challenges against newly added defendants, ruling that further discovery is warranted.

Lead Paint LitigationIndemnity ClaimsRestitution ClaimsStatute of LimitationsProducts LiabilityFraud ClaimsUnjust EnrichmentPublic Health SafetyEnvironmental HazardsSuccessor Liability
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schapiro v. New York City Department of Health

Plaintiff David B. Schapiro sued his former employers, the City of New York and its agency, the New York City Department of Health, alleging disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and a common law negligence claim. Schapiro claimed he developed respiratory problems from poor workplace conditions between 1989 and 1994, arguing the City failed to provide reasonable accommodation. The City moved for summary judgment, contending Schapiro was not disabled under the ADA, his claims were time-barred, and he failed to mitigate damages, also asserting his negligence claim was preempted by New York's Worker's Compensation Law. The court granted the City's motion, ruling that several of Schapiro's claims were time-barred and that he failed to establish a prima facie case of disability under the ADA as his impairment did not substantially limit a major life activity like breathing or working. Furthermore, the court found Schapiro's negligence claim was exclusively covered by the New York Worker's Compensation Law.

Disability DiscriminationADASummary JudgmentRespiratory ProblemsWorkplace ConditionsReasonable AccommodationTime BarEEOCNegligence ClaimWorker's Compensation Law
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 30, 2009

Owens v. City of New York

Plaintiff William A. Owens, a maintenance worker, sustained injuries after falling from a ladder while repairing a door's locking mechanism within the New York City school system. He subsequently initiated legal action against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education, asserting a violation of Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied Owens' motion for summary judgment on liability and granted the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim. The court determined that Owens' activity constituted routine maintenance, not a protected activity under the statute. The appellate court affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the defendants had established their prima facie entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.

Personal InjuryLadder AccidentRoutine MaintenanceLabor Law 240(1)Summary JudgmentAffirmation of OrderWorkplace InjuryStatutory LiabilityDefendants' Cross MotionPlaintiff's Appeal
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03976
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 01, 2025

Passantino v. City of New York

The case involves Joseph Passantino, who suffered a trip and fall on a scaffold in a fenced-off, locked construction area. Defendants New York City School Construction Authority and Admiral Construction LLC sought to compel depositions of two former Department of Education principals. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, granted the cross-motion of defendants City of New York and New York City Department of Education to quash the subpoenas, finding the depositions futile as the principals lacked personal knowledge of the fall or alleged hazards. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed this decision, concurring that the deposition testimony was not material and necessary.

DisclosureExamination Before TrialSubpoenasQuash SubpoenaTrip and FallScaffold AccidentConstruction SitePremises LiabilityAppellate ReviewDiscovery Dispute
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 07, 2008

Quarto v. City of New York

The plaintiff, Debra Quarto, sought leave to file a late notice of claim against the City of New York and the New York City Department of Education for negligence after fracturing her right ankle in a trip and fall incident on November 13, 2006. She had filed workers' compensation reports but failed to file a timely notice of claim within 90 days, citing ignorance of the requirement and reliance on her employer's advice regarding workers' compensation. The court considered three factors for granting a late notice: reasonable excuse, actual knowledge by the municipality, and prejudice to the municipality. The court found no reasonable excuse for the delay but determined that the City had actual knowledge of the essential facts of the claim through the workers' compensation reports. Furthermore, the court found no substantial prejudice to the City because the condition (a raised sidewalk) was not transient. Therefore, the application for leave to serve a late notice of claim was granted.

Late Notice of ClaimTrip and FallSidewalk DefectGovernmental NegligenceGeneral Municipal LawWorkers' Compensation ClaimActual KnowledgePrejudiceReasonable ExcuseMunicipal Liability
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 01, 2004

District Council 37 v. City of New York

This case involves an appeal of a Supreme Court judgment affirming a determination by the Board of Collective Bargaining of the City of New York. The petitioner public employee organizations (District Council 37 and Communications Workers of America) sought to annul the Board's decision regarding the City's unilateral implementation of a merit pay program for certain employees in the Human Resources Administration (JOS titles). The unions alleged the City violated the New York City Collective Bargaining Law by implementing the program without proper collective bargaining during a representation proceeding. The Board found the City had violated the NYC-CBL but denied the unions' request to compel the City to implement a similar merit pay program for non-JOS titles, citing inconsistency with its prior cease and desist order. The Supreme Court confirmed the Board's decision, and this judgment affirms that decision, finding the Board's actions to be reasonable and consistent with its statutory interpretation and that no new arguments warranted a different outcome.

Collective BargainingMerit Pay ProgramUnilateral ImplementationImproper PracticePublic Employee OrganizationRepresentation ProceedingStatus QuoAdministrative ReviewLabor DisputeAffirmation of Judgment
References
10
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
Showing 1-10 of 12,922 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