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

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

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

Waisome v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

Felix Waisome, along with other Black applicants, initiated a class action against the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey and the Port Authority Police Benevolent Association, Inc., alleging violations of Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Civil Rights Act of 1866. The plaintiffs claimed that the Port Authority's promotion selection criteria for police sergeants had an adverse, discriminatory impact on Black applicants. Waisome sought class certification and partial summary judgment on liability, while the Port Authority cross-moved for summary judgment. The court granted class certification but ultimately sided with the defendants, concluding that the statistical disparities in selection rates were insufficient, both in practical and legal terms, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory impact. Consequently, summary judgment was granted for the defendants, and the complaint was dismissed in its entirety.

Employment DiscriminationClass ActionTitle VIICivil Rights ActDisparate ImpactStatistical SignificanceSummary JudgmentPolice PromotionsRule 23Rule 56
References
15
Case No. Axelrod I, Axelrod II, Veit
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 19, 1985

Society of the New York Hospital v. Axelrod

This case concerns the Commissioner of Health of New York State's establishment of Medicaid, Blue Cross, workers' compensation, and no-fault insurance reimbursement rates for hospitals. In response to increased labor costs for hospitals affiliated with the League of Voluntary Hospitals, SHIF (Supplemental Hospital Index Factor) benefits were introduced to provide waivers based on actual increased labor costs. Eligibility for SHIF was determined by an "affordability" factor, utilizing a current ratio analysis where a ratio of current assets to liabilities less than 1:1 indicated eligibility. The Society of The New York Hospital and The New York Eye & Ear Infirmary were denied SHIF benefits due to their current ratios, while some other hospital groups with similar financial statuses received benefits. The Supreme Court initially found a rational basis for the rates but questioned the uniform application. The Appellate Division modified the decision, finding the application of eligibility tests to Hospital and Infirmary to be arbitrary, capricious, and discriminatory, thereby violating equal protection clauses. The court granted summary judgment to Hospital and Infirmary, declaring the denial of SHIF benefits arbitrary and capricious, and remanded for an assessment of due benefits.

Reimbursement RatesMedicaidWorkers' CompensationNo-Fault InsurancePublic Health LawSHIF BenefitsAffordability FactorCurrent Ratio TestArbitrary and CapriciousEqual Protection
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Typographical Union No. 6 v. AA Job Printing

The case concerns a petition by New York Typographical Union No. 6 to confirm arbitration awards against employers AA Job Printing Corp. and The Jewish Press, Inc., for violations of a collective bargaining agreement. The employers cross-moved for summary judgment to dismiss the petition, arguing the awards were not final and that a pending National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) matter preempted the action. The court noted the employers' procedural defaults but favored a decision on the merits. District Judge ROBERT L. CARTER ruled that the arbitration awards were final and definite, and the federal court's jurisdiction under Section 301 of the Labor Management Relations Act was independent of the NLRB's jurisdiction. The court also dismissed the employers' unsupported claim of sexual discrimination. Consequently, the court granted summary judgment in favor of the Union, confirming the arbitration awards, and denied the employers' cross-motion.

Arbitration Award ConfirmationCollective Bargaining AgreementLabor Management Relations ActSection 301 LMRASummary JudgmentFederal Court JurisdictionNLRB PreemptionDefault JudgmentProcedural RulesEmployer-Union Dispute
References
7
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
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. City of New York Fire Department

Petitioners, the New York Times Company and Jim Dwyer, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding and declaratory judgment action seeking the disclosure of records from the Fire Department of the City of New York (FDNY) under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL), related to the events of September 11, 2001. Their request included oral histories of FDNY personnel and radio communications. The FDNY denied parts of the request, citing exemptions for law enforcement purposes, intra-agency materials, and personal privacy. The court ruled that the FDNY failed to demonstrate the applicability of the law enforcement exemption. Consequently, the court ordered the disclosure of factual portions of the oral histories, the 911 tapes and transcripts of family members who waived privacy, and non-intra-agency parts of operator, dispatcher, and unit communications, while denying petitioners' request for attorneys' fees.

Freedom of Information LawFOILPublic RecordsSeptember 11World Trade CenterFDNYOral HistoriesRadio CommunicationsPrivacy ExemptionLaw Enforcement Exemption
References
14
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
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 Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 20,376 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