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. ADJ3954433 (VNO 0520736)
Regular
Nov 23, 2009

Sandra Costello vs. ALHAMBRA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT

Reconsideration denied. Applicant's injury at an off-campus Science Bowl was deemed work-related because her attendance was a reasonable expectancy of her employment as a science teacher.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial InjuryLabor Code Section 3600(a)(9)Off-duty Recreational ActivityOff-campus Science BowlCourse of EmploymentGrowing Out Of and Incidental To EmploymentSubjective BeliefObjectively ReasonableImplied Requirement of Employment
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Benjamin v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC

This case involves Patrice Benjamin and Brenda Thomas (Plaintiffs) suing Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (Defendant) for alleged employment discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, the New York Human Rights Law, the Americans with Disabilities Act, and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The Defendant filed a motion for partial judgment on the pleadings, while the Plaintiffs cross-moved to amend their complaint. The court dismissed Brenda Thomas's Title VII and NYSHRL claims entirely and limited Patrice Benjamin's Title VII and NYSHRL claims for race discrimination, retaliation, and hostile work environment to actions occurring after December 21, 2002. The court also dismissed the Plaintiffs' Section 1983/Bivens claims but denied the Defendant's motion to dismiss Benjamin's ADA claim. Finally, the Plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend the complaint was granted in part, allowing for the inclusion of a 42 U.S.C. § 1981 cause of action for both plaintiffs, along with specific, limited claims for Benjamin in the amended complaint.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VIINew York Human Rights Law42 U.S.C. § 198342 U.S.C. § 1981Judgment on the PleadingsAmending Complaint
References
28
Case No. No. 8
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2022

Ersin Konkur v. Utica Academy of Science Charter School

Plaintiff Ersin Konkur, a math teacher, sued his former employer, Utica Academy of Science Charter School, and High Way Education, Inc. (doing business as Turkish Cultural Center), alleging he was coerced into making 'kickback' payments from his wages in violation of Labor Law § 198-b. The central legal question on appeal was whether Labor Law § 198-b contains an implied private right of action for employees. The New York Court of Appeals concluded that the legislature did not intend to create such a freestanding private right of action, highlighting the existing robust enforcement mechanisms available through criminal prosecution and administrative action by the Labor Commissioner. Consequently, the Appellate Division's decision to dismiss the complaint against High Way Education, Inc. was affirmed.

Wage KickbacksImplied Private Right of ActionLabor LawNew York Court of AppealsEmployment LawStatutory InterpretationEnforcement MechanismsWage ClaimsAdministrative EnforcementCriminal Prosecution
References
26
Case No. 99 Civ. 11886 WCC
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 11, 2000

Leonard v. DUTCHESS CTY. DEPT. OF HEALTH

Plaintiffs, including restaurant and bowling center owners and the National Smokers Alliance, challenged smoking regulations promulgated by the Dutchess County Department of Health and Board of Health. They alleged violations of equal protection, free speech, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, the New York State Constitution, and Article 78. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction, while plaintiffs moved for summary judgment and injunctive relief. The court, treating both as motions for summary judgment, found that the Board of Health exceeded its authority under the New York State separation of powers doctrine by enacting regulations that balanced economic, social, and privacy interests, rather than solely health concerns. Specifically, the court noted the Board's consideration of non-health factors, the non-interstitial nature of the regulations compared to state law, and the County Legislature's prior failure to pass similar legislation. Consequently, the court granted plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and permanently enjoined the defendants from enforcing the challenged smoking regulations.

Smoking RegulationsPublic Health LawSeparation of PowersAdministrative Agency OverreachSummary JudgmentInjunctive ReliefDutchess CountyClean Indoor Air ActConstitutional LawArticle 78
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bowles v. New York

Plaintiff Tony Bowles filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, alleging false arrest, malicious prosecution, verbal harassment, and excessive force against the State of New York, Riverbank State Park, and Officer J. Hardison. Bowles claimed harassment and verbal abuse in Riverbank State Park by Officer Hardison, leading to an arrest on October 15, 1997, where he was allegedly pushed and shoved. He was issued two summonses for disorderly conduct, one dismissed and the other adjourned in contemplation of dismissal (ACD). Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, arguing Eleventh Amendment immunity for the State of New York and that Riverbank State Park is not a "person" under § 1983. The court granted the defendants' motion, dismissing claims against the State and Park due to immunity and lack of "person" status, respectively, and also dismissing false arrest, malicious prosecution, excessive force, and verbal harassment claims for various legal reasons.

42 U.S.C. § 1983False ArrestMalicious ProsecutionExcessive ForceVerbal HarassmentEleventh Amendment ImmunityPro Se LitigationJudgment on the PleadingsDisorderly ConductAdjournment in Contemplation of Dismissal (ACD)
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2015

Bowles v. New York City Housing Authority

This case concerns an action for wrongful death and conscious pain and suffering stemming from a fire in an apartment owned by the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) and occupied by the decedent, Alease Jenkins. The Supreme Court granted NYCHA's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint, and denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed this order. The court found that NYCHA met its burden by demonstrating it installed a working smoke detector and that its maintenance was the decedent's responsibility. Plaintiffs failed to present a triable issue of fact regarding the smoke detector's operability after a prior inspection or NYCHA's actual or constructive notice of any defect.

Wrongful deathconscious pain and sufferingsummary judgmentsmoke detectorlandlord liabilitynegligencemaintenance responsibilityhousing authorityfire incidentappellate review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Schiappa v. Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC

Daniel A. Schiappa, Sr. sued his former employer, Brookhaven Science Associates, LLC (BSA), alleging age and disability discrimination, hostile work environment, wrongful termination, and refusal to rehire. BSA moved for partial judgment on the pleadings. The court granted BSA's motion, dismissing Schiappa's hostile work environment claim as time-barred, his retaliation claim for failure to exhaust administrative remedies, his Section 1983 claim because BSA is not a state actor, and his New York Human Rights Law claims due to the federal enclave doctrine. The only remaining claim is for unlawful termination under the ADEA.

Age DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentWrongful TerminationFederal Enclave DoctrineRule 12(c) MotionJudgment on PleadingsADEARehabilitation ActSection 1983 Claims
References
29
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 20, 2014

Lawtone-Bowles v. City of New York

Pro se plaintiff Nicole Lawtone-Bowles filed an action against the City of New York, Department of Sanitation (DSNY) and Kadaya Pouncie, alleging various forms of employment discrimination, retaliation, failure to accommodate, assault, and negligent supervision under state and federal laws. The DSNY moved to dismiss these claims. The court granted the motion to dismiss the plaintiff's ADA claims, finding them barred by collateral estoppel due to prior state court proceedings. Additionally, the Title VII and ADEA discrimination and retaliation claims were dismissed for failure to state a plausible claim for relief. The court ultimately declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state-law tort and discrimination claims, dismissing them without prejudice.

Employment DiscriminationRetaliationFailure to AccommodateAssaultNegligent SupervisionMotion to DismissCollateral EstoppelSupplemental JurisdictionADA ClaimsADEA Claims
References
49
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wickwire v. State University of New York Health Science Center

The petitioner, a permanent employee of the Health Science Center (HSC), was dismissed under Civil Service Law § 71 after sustaining an employment-related back injury. His physician indicated permanent incapacity. HSC attempted to terminate him, but the court found procedural deficiencies. Specifically, HSC failed to prove proper service of notice and did not provide the required 30-day notice period. Furthermore, the termination letter did not fully inform the petitioner of all his rights under 4 NYCRR 5.9(d). As a result, the court granted the petitioner's CPLR article 78 petition, ruling the termination ineffective and ordering his reinstatement retroactive to March 13, 1996.

Civil Service LawWrongful TerminationDue ProcessNotice RequirementsReinstatementWorkers' Compensation LeavePermanent DisabilityCPLR Article 78Statutory InterpretationProcedural Deficiency
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

American Federation of Television & Radio Artists v. Benton & Bowles, Inc.

The plaintiff, American Federation of Television and Radio Artists, AFL-CIO (AFTRA), initiated this action to vacate and modify a portion of an arbitration award against Benton & Bowles, Inc. (B&B). The dispute centered on performer compensation for rebroadcasts of the 'Texas' soap opera on a hybrid free TV/basic cable system, a scenario not explicitly covered by their collective bargaining agreement (TV Code), and B&B's unauthorized editing of the program. The arbitration panel found B&B violated the TV Code by editing without AFTRA's consent and fashioned a compensation remedy. The District Court affirmed the arbitrators' compensation award, finding it a plausible solution to an unforeseen contractual gap. However, the court vacated the part of the award that implicitly permitted continued unauthorized editing, ruling that this exceeded the arbitrators' contractual authority, and remanded the case for modification to enjoin B&B from further unauthorized editing.

Labor disputeArbitration awardCollective bargaining agreementTV CodeRebroadcast feesEditing rightsArbitrator authorityJudicial reviewContract interpretationSummary judgment
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 84 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