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. 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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06231 [243 AD3d 1034]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 13, 2025

Matter of County of Rockland v. New York State Dept. of Envtl. Conservation

The County of Rockland appealed a Supreme Court judgment that dismissed its application to annul a determination by the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (DEC). The dispute centered on DEC's issuance of a renewed State Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (SPDES) permit for the Orangeburg Wastewater Treatment Plant, specifically concerning the County's request to incorporate a proposed diffuser project. The County argued that DEC improperly failed to rescind a notice of complete application to allow for a new review process, including consideration of its proposed diffuser, and by requiring a permittee-initiated modification request. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that DEC acted rationally in declining to further delay the permit issuance given the lengthy process and the speculative nature of the diffuser project. The court also determined that the County's additional arguments regarding the "reopening" of the application and the application of equitable estoppel were unpreserved for review or lacked merit.

Environmental LawSPDES PermitWastewater TreatmentJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Administrative LawAppellate ReviewEffluent LimitsDiffuser ProjectSEQRA
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Suffolk County Community College v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case involves a proceeding initiated by Suffolk County Community College to review a determination by the New York State Division of Human Rights. The Division had previously found the college guilty of unlawful racially discriminatory practices and retaliation against an employee, awarding $50,000 in compensatory damages. The Division of Human Rights cross-petitioned to enforce this determination. Following a reversal and remittal by the Court of Appeals, the Appellate Division reviewed the matter. The court denied the branch of the cross-petition seeking to enforce the $50,000 compensatory damages award, finding it excessive due to insufficient evidence regarding the duration, severity, or consequences of the complainant's mental anguish related to racial discrimination. The determination was otherwise confirmed, and the case was remitted to the New York State Division of Human Rights for a new award of compensatory damages not exceeding $5,000.

Racial DiscriminationRetaliationCompensatory DamagesExcessive DamagesMental AnguishAdministrative Law ReviewHuman Rights LawAppellate ReviewRemittalSufficiency of Evidence
References
8
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

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
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. 93 Civ. 7146(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 17, 2002

NEW YORK STATE NAT. ORG. FOR WOMEN v. Pataki

This case addresses several post-appeal motions in a class-action lawsuit. Plaintiffs sought curative notice relief related to a permanent injunction against the New York State Division of Human Rights' 1995 Intake Rules. Defendants cross-moved to dismiss the entire action, arguing a prior Second Circuit ruling vacated all relief. Plaintiff Class-Member Abby Oshinsky moved to reinstate her discrimination claims, and the New York City Housing Authority moved to intervene. The court denied defendants' cross-motion, affirming the injunction against the 1995 Intake Rules was not appealed and thus survived. However, plaintiffs' motion for curative notice relief and Oshinsky's motion were denied, with the latter rendering the NYCHA's intervention motion moot.

Due ProcessClass ActionPermanent InjunctionAdministrative PracticesDivision of Human RightsProcedural Due ProcessEqual ProtectionDiscrimination ClaimsJudicial ReviewAppellate Review
References
6
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
Mar 22, 1989

Tibak v. City of New York

Plaintiffs decedent, Albert Tibak, a dockbuilder, was killed when struck by a steel beam falling from a crane on a barge while rehabilitating Pier 97. The plaintiff alleged a violation of the New York State Labor Law. However, the IAS court granted the City of New York's motion for summary judgment, determining the case was governed by Federal maritime law due to the accident occurring on navigable waters and having a significant relationship to traditional maritime activities. The Appellate Court unanimously affirmed this decision, finding the record sufficient and concluding that Federal maritime law, specifically the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act, preempted the New York State Labor Law in this instance.

Maritime LawSummary JudgmentFederal PreemptionLongshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActPersonal InjuryWrongful DeathNavigable WatersLabor LawAppellate ReviewJudicial Affirmation
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
Showing 1-10 of 15,789 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