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
Apr 10, 2018

Greenaway v. Cnty. of Nassau

This case addresses post-verdict motions following a jury trial where plaintiffs Shuay'b Greenaway, Sharon Knight, and Avery Knight sued the Incorporated Village of Hempstead, County of Nassau, and several police officers for constitutional violations including false imprisonment, excessive force, and unlawful entry. The jury found defendants liable on multiple counts, awarding substantial damages. The District Court largely denied motions for judgment as a matter of law. While upholding most liability findings, the Court granted remittitur for Mr. Greenaway's excessive force award, reducing it to $2.5 million, and for the unlawful entry/trespass claim, reducing it to $10,000. Punitive damages against individual officers were upheld, but awards for gross negligence and failure to intervene were reduced to zero.

Excessive ForceFalse ImprisonmentUnlawful EntryTrespassMunicipal LiabilityPunitive DamagesRule 50(b) MotionRule 59 MotionRemittiturQualified Immunity
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 21, 2015

Mitre Sports International Ltd. v. Home Box Office, Inc.

Magistrate Judge Pitman addressed four discovery disputes between Mitre Sports International Limited and Home Box Office, Inc. The court overruled HBO's objections to the Special Master's decision regarding privilege and work product waiver, finding no subject-matter waiver by Mitre. HBO's application to compel further in-person deposition of Kam Raghavan was largely denied, requiring a video link unless over five hours of questioning remained. Mitre's application for additional interrogatory responses was denied due to procedural issues and lack of demonstrated practicality. Lastly, Mitre's motion to preclude the use of the Cottingham declaration was denied, with the court finding adequate prior disclosure.

Discovery disputesWork-product doctrinePrivilege waiverFederal Rules of Evidence Rule 502Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 26Deposition testimonyInterrogatoriesSummary judgmentDefamation claimChild labor allegations
References
51
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hansen v. Post

The petitioner, a child protective worker, sought custody of Christopher Post, whose parents, Rose and William Post, had a documented history of child abuse and neglect, leading to the removal of seven other children from their care. Christopher had also been involved in two prior neglect proceedings. The parents exhibited severe deficiencies in parenting skills, an inability to address Christopher's emotional disturbances, and a history of rejecting assistance. After voluntarily placing Christopher with the petitioner, who became his psychological parent, they abruptly cut off contact. The Family Court found extraordinary circumstances, justified judicial intervention, and granted custody to the petitioner, a decision which the appellate court subsequently affirmed.

Custody DisputeParental UnfitnessChild NeglectExtraordinary CircumstancesFamily Court Act Article 6Child Protective ServicesAppealParental RightsPsychological ParentEmotional Disturbance
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mair-Headley v. County of Westchester

The petitioner, a correction officer, was terminated from her employment by the Westchester County Department of Corrections after being absent for over one year due to a nonoccupational injury, pursuant to Civil Service Law § 73. She challenged this determination through a CPLR article 78 proceeding, alleging denial of due process and violation of the Human Rights Law. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the due process claim and transferred the remaining issues to this Court. This Court confirmed the determination, finding that the petitioner received adequate pre-termination notice and a post-termination hearing, satisfying due process. Additionally, the Court concluded that the termination did not violate the Human Rights Law, as employers are not obligated to create new light-duty or permanent light-duty positions for accommodation.

Civil Service LawCPLR Article 78Due ProcessHuman Rights LawEmployment TerminationCorrection OfficerDisability AccommodationWestchester CountyAppellate ReviewPublic Employment
References
21
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 07262
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 07, 2015

Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Ass'n v. County of Westchester

The case involves an action brought by the Westchester County Correction Superior Officers Association and several retired correction officers against the County of Westchester. The plaintiffs sought damages for an alleged breach of a collective bargaining agreement, claiming the county failed to provide benefits equivalent to Workers' Compensation Law for permanent disability. The Supreme Court, Westchester County, initially denied the defendants' motion to dismiss but later granted their motion for summary judgment, dismissing the complaint. The Supreme Court also denied the plaintiffs' cross-motion to amend their complaint. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that no provision in the collective bargaining agreement mandated such payments and that the proposed amendment to the complaint lacked merit.

Collective Bargaining AgreementBreach of ContractSummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation BenefitsLoss of Earning CapacityPermanent DisabilityLeave to Amend ComplaintAppellate ReviewAffirmationJudiciary Law
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Matter of New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Petitioners, the New York State Correctional Officers and Police Benevolent Association, Inc. (NYSCOPBA) and Richard McPhillips, challenged an emergency regulation by the Office of Mental Health (OMH) that mandated unvaccinated personnel in psychiatric facilities wear face masks during influenza season, arguing it was arbitrary and capricious. The Supreme Court dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The Appellate Division determined the case was not moot, as the subsequently adopted permanent regulation presented the same alleged infirmities. On the merits, the court upheld the regulation, granting OMH significant judicial deference due to its expertise. OMH's decision was based on Department of Health expertise, its own assessment of patient vulnerability, and the efficacy of masks. The court found that OMH adequately addressed concerns regarding communication and role modeling, and reasonably justified exemptions for visitors and attorneys. The judgment dismissing the petition was affirmed.

RegulationsPublic HealthMandatory MasksInfluenzaPsychiatric FacilitiesWorkers' RightsAdministrative LawJudicial DeferenceMootnessCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

McLaurin v. New Rochelle Police Officers

Plaintiff Charles B. MeLaurin filed a pro se action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against numerous New Rochelle police officers and city officials, including Peter Kornas, Louis Falcone, Brian Fagan, David Lornegan, Edward Martinez, Dominic Procopio, Mayor Timothy Idoni, and the City of New Rochelle. MeLaurin alleged constitutional rights violations stemming from two arrests: one for assault on August 6, 2001, and another for criminal contempt on September 28, 2002. Defendants moved for judgment on the pleadings, asserting qualified immunity and failure to state a claim. The court granted dismissal with prejudice for most defendants, finding their actions objectively reasonable or lacking personal involvement, or due to plaintiff's failure to state a claim or comply with state law. Claims against Officers Lynch, Lore, Conca, Al-Fattaah, Kamau, and Navarette were dismissed without prejudice for lack of personal involvement. Officer Dina Lynn Moretti's motion was converted to one for summary judgment, giving the plaintiff 45 days to provide evidence regarding probable cause for the second arrest. State law claims were also dismissed due to non-compliance with New York General Municipal Law notice-of-claim requirements.

Excessive ForceFalse ArrestMalicious ProsecutionQualified ImmunityPro Se LitigationMunicipal LiabilityMonell ClaimFederal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(c)Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 56Civil Rights Violation
References
59
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hanley v. Lobster Box Restaurant, Inc.

This decision addresses a motion to dismiss filed by third-party defendant Hotel Employees and Restaurant Employees Union, Local 100, against the third-party complaint of Lobster Box Restaurant, Inc. Lobster Box sought a declaration that its collective bargaining agreement with Local 100 was voidable due to alleged fraud and misrepresentation, and requested indemnification. Presiding Judge Berman, citing Textron Lycoming, determined that the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction under LMRA § 301, as the statute applies to contract violations and not claims of contract invalidity. Furthermore, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over Lobster Box's state common law claims, deferring to the exclusive competence of the National Labor Relations Board under the Garmon preemption doctrine. Consequently, the third-party complaint was dismissed.

Subject Matter JurisdictionLMRA Section 301Contract ValidityFraudulent InducementNegligent MisrepresentationNational Labor Relations Board (NLRB)Garmon PreemptionCollective Bargaining AgreementThird-Party ComplaintFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1)
References
9
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04692 [219 AD3d 1617]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

Matter of Balbuena v. Rocco & Son Ironwork Inc.

The case involves an appeal by the State Insurance Fund's (SIF) counsel, The Law Offices of Melissa A. Day, PLLC, against a monetary penalty of $1,000 assessed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Board had imposed the penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a (3) (ii) for continuing proceedings without reasonable grounds, specifically regarding improper service of the claimant's application for review due to an incorrect address. SIF's counsel argued that the Brooklyn address used was listed in the Board's file and claimant's medical records. The Appellate Division, Third Department, found that substantial evidence did not support the Board's finding that SIF's counsel offered no reasonable basis for attempting service at the Brooklyn address. Consequently, the decision was modified to reverse the penalty against SIF's counsel, and as modified, affirmed.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewAttorney PenaltyImproper ServiceReasonable GroundsState Insurance FundWorkers' Compensation BoardDue ProcessSubstantial EvidenceJudicial Review
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

M. Cristo, Inc. v. State of New York Office of General Services

This dissenting opinion by Staley, Jr., J. concerns the rejection of a low bid from a petitioner by the Office of General Services. The rejection was based on the petitioner's unresolved labor dispute with Laborers Local No. 190, which the Office of General Services feared would cause disruption and delay to the South Mall project, a 'time of the essence' contract. Staley, Jr., J. argues that the State's action was lawful, citing State Finance Law § 174 and previous cases that permit bid rejection in the best interests of the State, especially when a labor dispute threatens project completion. The dissent distinguishes this case from precedents involving mere threats of union action. However, the majority decision, which this opinion dissents from, reversed the judgment and ruled in favor of the petitioner.

Labor DisputeBid RejectionState ContractPublic WorksTime of EssenceJudicial ReviewAppellate DecisionProcurement LawNonunion WorkersProject Delay
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 6,443 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