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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New Breed Logistics

The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sued New Breed Logistics, alleging sexual harassment by supervisor James Calhoun against Jaquelyn Hines, Capricius Pearson, and Tiffany Pete, and retaliation against them and Christopher Partee under Title VII. Following a jury verdict against New Breed, the company moved for a new trial, to amend judgment, and for judgment as a matter of law, citing errors in jury instructions and insufficient evidence. The court denied New Breed's motion for a new trial, and partially granted and denied its motions to amend judgment and for judgment as a matter of law. Notably, Partee's punitive damages were reduced due to a statutory cap, and the court addressed the impact of recent Supreme Court decisions in Vance and Nassar on supervisor liability and causation standards. The court ultimately found sufficient evidence to support the jury's findings on harassment, retaliation, and punitive damages, and affirmed the jury instructions.

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIJury InstructionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew Trial MotionAmend Judgment MotionPunitive DamagesEmployer LiabilityCausation Standard

References

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

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

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

Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04825

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 14, 2017

LaLima v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

The plaintiff, Vienna LaLima, individually and as administratrix of her deceased husband's estate, appealed a Supreme Court order that denied her motion to amend the complaint. Her husband, a Verizon employee, died after contacting a high voltage power line. LaLima initially sued Consolidated Edison Company of New York, Inc., Lewis Tree Service, and the City of New York. Verizon, a third-party defendant, had agreed to preserve the accident truck, but it was vandalized. LaLima sought to add Verizon as a direct defendant, alleging various causes of action including negligence, Labor Law violations, spoliation of evidence, and wrongful death. The Appellate Division affirmed the denial, ruling that Workers' Compensation benefits are the exclusive remedy against an employer for work-related death and that New York does not recognize spoliation of evidence as an independent tort. The court found the proposed amendments patently devoid of merit.

personal injurywrongful deathspoliation of evidenceWorkers' Compensation Lawexclusive remedyfraudulent concealmentamendment of complaintappellate reviewcivil procedureemployer liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fanelli v. New York

Gina M. Fanelli, the plaintiff, initiated this action against the State of New York, James Gilmore, and Peter A. Scully, alleging gender-based discrimination and retaliatory employment practices under Title VII and the New York Human Rights Law. Following an earlier partial dismissal, the remaining claims included Title VII allegations against the State of New York and NYHRL claims against Gilmore in his official capacity. Defendants subsequently moved for summary judgment, which the court granted. The court found that Fanelli failed to present sufficient evidence of pretext for her discrimination claims concerning denied promotions to Biologist 2 positions. Additionally, her retaliation claims, related to an internet use investigation, denial of a compressed work schedule, and restrictions on attending meetings, were dismissed due to insufficient evidence of retaliatory intent.

DiscriminationRetaliationGender DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawAdverse Employment ActionPretextPrima Facie Case

References

Case No. 08-23-00355-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 29, 2025

New Mission Home Care, LLC v. Tony Lawrence Read, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of George Read, and Bertha Acosta, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Teresa Acosta Read

New Mission Home Care, LLC appealed a $13 million jury verdict in a car-train collision case. The appellate court identified jury charge error regarding the definition of "course and scope" of employment, which was crucial for assessing New Mission's vicarious liability. Upon review, the court found legally insufficient evidence to support the appellees' vicarious liability claim based on the corrected course-and-scope definition. Furthermore, the court determined there was also legally insufficient evidence to sustain the direct liability claims, including negligent hiring, retaining, training, and supervision, against New Mission. Consequently, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment and rendered a take-nothing judgment in favor of New Mission.

Vicarious LiabilityCourse and Scope of EmploymentNegligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent TrainingNegligent SupervisionJury Charge ErrorLegal Sufficiency of EvidenceAppellate ReviewCar-Train Collision

References

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

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05140

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 11, 2023

Matter of Robles v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Jose Robles sought to amend an indicated report of child maltreatment from the New York State Central Register, alleging he subjected his children to a religious ritual involving blindfolds and cutting with a ritual blade. The New York State Office of Children and Family Services (OCFS) denied his application after a fair hearing, finding the report was supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence. The Appellate Division, Second Department, confirmed OCFS's determination, concluding that it was supported by substantial evidence. The court also found substantial evidence that the acts forming the basis of the report were relevant and reasonably related to his employment as a childcare provider. Consequently, the petition was denied, and the proceeding dismissed on the merits.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseReligious RitualCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFair PreponderanceChild Care ProviderSocial Services LawAppellate Division

References

Case No. 02-CV-6666L

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion

References

Showing 1-10 of 22,663 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

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

Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. New Breed Logistics

Sexual HarassmentRetaliationTitle VIIJury InstructionsJudgment as a Matter of LawNew Trial MotionAmend Judgment MotionPunitive DamagesEmployer LiabilityCausation Standard

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

MacK v. Port Authority of New York and New Jersey

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationSummary Judgment42 U.S.C. Section 198142 U.S.C. Section 1983Port AuthorityBi-State AgencyMunicipal LiabilityDrug Testing

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

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

Public EmploymentLabor RelationsCollective BargainingImproper Labor PracticeOff-Duty Secondary EmploymentCivil Service LawTaylor LawJudicial ReviewSubstantial EvidenceAdministrative Law

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Duff v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

References

Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 04825

Regular Panel Decision

Jun 14, 2017

LaLima v. Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc.

personal injurywrongful deathspoliation of evidenceWorkers' Compensation Lawexclusive remedyfraudulent concealmentamendment of complaintappellate reviewcivil procedureemployer liability

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Fanelli v. New York

DiscriminationRetaliationGender DiscriminationEmployment LawSummary JudgmentTitle VIINew York Human Rights LawAdverse Employment ActionPretextPrima Facie Case

References

Case No. 08-23-00355-CV

Regular Panel Decision

Sep 29, 2025

New Mission Home Care, LLC v. Tony Lawrence Read, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of George Read, and Bertha Acosta, Individually and as Independent Administrator of the Estate of Teresa Acosta Read

References

Case No. MISSING

Regular Panel Decision

Prats v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Labor Law § 240(1)Ladder AccidentConstruction WorkBuilding AlterationWorkplace SafetyStatutory InterpretationCertified QuestionNew York Court of AppealsInspection ActivitySummary Judgment Reversal

References

Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 05140

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 11, 2023

Matter of Robles v. New York State Off. of Children & Family Servs.

Child MaltreatmentChild AbuseReligious RitualCPLR Article 78Administrative ReviewSubstantial EvidenceFair PreponderanceChild Care ProviderSocial Services LawAppellate Division

References

Case No. 02-CV-6666L

Regular Panel Decision

Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion

References

Showing 1-10 of 22,663 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.