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

Samuelsen v. New York City Transit Authority

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
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
May 18, 2001

Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Julian v. New York City Transit Authority

Vera Julian, a pro se plaintiff, sued the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and the New York City Employees Retirement System (NYCERS) after her employment termination and the denial of disability benefits. Julian sustained a back injury on the job in 1988, leading to a finding of permanent disability. Following bureaucratic errors regarding her termination and disability applications, she filed an Article 78 proceeding in state court, which resulted in a stipulation allowing her to reapply for benefits. However, her subsequent applications were denied. In this federal action, Julian alleged employment discrimination (race, gender, age, marital status, disability) under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Title VII, and ADEA, as well as conspiracy, retaliation, and due process violations. The court granted defendants' motions to dismiss, finding that Julian failed to exhaust administrative remedies for discrimination claims, that her allegations were conclusory, and that state law provided adequate due process. The court also dismissed her state law claims, suggesting that her remedy lies in state court.

Employment DiscriminationDisability BenefitsTermination of EmploymentRes JudicataDue ProcessCivil Rights ActAge Discrimination in Employment ActRehabilitation ActWorkers' CompensationSocial Security Disability
References
53
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Crosland v. New York City Transit Authority

This case addresses whether a public carrier can be held civilly liable when its employees witness a passenger being attacked and fail to intervene or summon aid. Steven Crosland, Jr., a student, was beaten to death by hoodlums in a New York City subway station. His representatives sued the New York City Transit Authority, alleging failure to provide police presence and employee negligence. While the court affirmed that the Transit Authority owed no special duty and its internal rule 85 was inadmissible, it held that the Authority is not entirely immune from liability. The decision clarifies that the failure of an employee to summon aid without risk to themselves, while observing an injury being inflicted, is beyond governmental immunity. The court balanced the potential burden on the Authority against the policies of victim compensation and general deterrence.

Public Carrier LiabilitySubway ViolenceEmployee NegligenceGovernmental Immunity LimitsDuty to AidThird-Party AssaultTransit Authority LawSummary Judgment StandardAppellate ReviewCommon Carrier Duty
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Transit Authority v. Transport Workers Union of Greater New York

Jose Cruz, a bus operator for the New York City Transit Authority (TA), was found to have color-blindness during a routine physical examination. A physician recommended a road test to assess his fitness, but the TA refused, asserting the test was non-medical and insufficient to evaluate his ability to meet required vision standards under Vehicle and Traffic Law and NYCRR regulations. Subsequently, the Transport Workers Union of Greater New York, Local 100 (TWU) filed a grievance on Cruz's behalf, which the TA denied, leading to a request for binding arbitration. The TA then initiated a proceeding to permanently stay arbitration, arguing the grievance was not arbitrable. The Supreme Court denied the TA's petition and dismissed the proceeding, a decision that was ultimately affirmed by the appellate court, which found no statutory or public policy prohibitions against arbitrating the dispute under the parties' collective bargaining agreement.

arbitrationcollective bargaining agreementbus operatorcolor-blindnessvision requirementsroad testpublic sectorarbitrabilitygrievanceappellate decision
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cividanes v. City of New York

The case concerns a plaintiff who sued the City of New York and two transit authorities for negligence after sustaining an ankle injury from a pothole while alighting a bus. The claim against the City was dismissed due to lack of prior written notice, while the claim against the authorities alleged a breach of duty to provide a safe disembarking location. The dissenting opinion argues that the No-Fault Insurance Law should apply, as the injury arose from the use or operation of a motor vehicle—specifically, the bus driver's negligent positioning. This contrasts with the majority's decision, which affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the No-Fault Law inapplicable because the injury did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. The dissent cites *Manuel v New York City Tr. Auth.* as relevant precedent, distinguishing it from *Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.*

NegligenceNo-Fault Insurance LawMotor Vehicle OperationPothole InjuryBus AccidentProximate CauseDisembarking SafetyDuty of CareAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cambizaca v. New York City Transit Authority

The decedent, working for a contractor, was fatally injured on a subway platform by a broken angle grinder part while performing work for the New York City Transit Authority. The plaintiff, as administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed suit against the New York City Transit Authority alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims. The court found no supervisory control by the defendant over the work methods for the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the plaintiff failed to identify a viable Industrial Code provision for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Common-law negligenceLabor Lawsubway accidentworkplace injurysummary judgmentcontractor liabilitysupervisory controlIndustrial Codeunsafe work environmentconstruction safety
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 03, 2015

Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal regarding judgments entered after a jury trial against the New York City Transit Authority and Annie M. Canty. The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed two separate judgments for plaintiffs Diane Coleman and Dorothy Lemon. For Diane Coleman, the award for past pain and suffering was modified from $1.25 million to $1 million, with the rest affirmed. For Dorothy Lemon, the future lost earnings award was reduced from $728,000 to $520,000 over 25 years, while other awards for pain and suffering and past lost earnings were affirmed. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, including the redaction of a social worker's statement from hospital records and the preclusion of expert testimony due to late disclosure.

Damages ReductionPain and Suffering AwardLost Earnings CalculationAppellate ReviewJury TrialEvidentiary RulingsExpert Witness PreclusionHospital Records AdmissibilityBiomechanical ExpertsAccident Reconstruction
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gray v. New York City Transit Authority

The petitioner, a signal maintainer’s helper, was terminated from employment by the New York City Transit Authority after a urine test revealed marihuana use, aligning with T.O.P. No. 616, § 6.9 for employees with less than two years of service. The petitioner challenged this dismissal as arbitrary, citing a coworker, Joseph Joyce, who received a lesser penalty. Initially, the Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated the dismissal and remitted the matter for a new penalty. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that Joyce’s lenient punishment occurred after the Transit Authority had implemented a more forgiving policy. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate arbitrary enforcement at the time of his dismissal, confirmed the Transit Authority's determination, and dismissed the petition on the merits.

Employment TerminationMarihuana UseDrug TestingCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousPolicy ChangeRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewPublic Employee Dismissal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 15,481 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