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
Sep 01, 1992

Seelig v. Sielaff

The Supreme Court, New York County, initially issued a judgment enjoining respondents from releasing the social security numbers of correction officers without their consent and ordered the implementation of privacy safeguards. This judgment was subsequently reversed on appeal, vacated, and the proceeding was converted to one for a declaratory judgment. The appellate court declared that the release of correction officers' social security numbers by the respondents, in response to a Public Officers Law § 87 request, constituted an unwarranted invasion of privacy under Public Officers Law § 89 (2), citing federal precedents. The injunctive relief previously granted was also deemed improper as the Personal Privacy Protection Law (Public Officers Law § 92 [1]) exempts local government units and the judiciary from its provisions.

Freedom of Information LawPrivacy InvasionSocial Security NumbersCorrection OfficersPublic Officers LawDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate ReviewGovernment RecordsConfidentialityCPLR Article 78
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Verizon New York Inc. v. New York State Public Service Commission

Verizon New York Inc. commenced a special proceeding against the New York State Public Service Commission and other respondents. Verizon sought to overturn a determination allowing public disclosure of certain documents, which Verizon claimed were trade secrets or confidential commercial information, under the Freedom of Information Law (FOIL). The documents in question related to Verizon's network costs and its methods and procedures for its wireless service, Verizon Voice Link (WL). The court reviewed the Secretary's and RAO's determinations, which found some information to be trade secrets but still required a showing of 'substantial injury' for exemption. The court ruled that once information is deemed a trade secret under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (d), no further showing of substantial competitive injury is required for exemption. Consequently, the court granted in part the petition, exempting specific cost information and several M&P documents from disclosure, while denying exemption for three M&P documents.

FOIL ExemptionTrade Secret ProtectionConfidential Commercial InformationPublic Officers Law § 87 (2) (d)Substantial Competitive InjuryStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Determination ReviewCPLR Article 78Wireless ServicesCost Information Disclosure
References
47
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 28, 2008

New York Committee for Occupational Safety & Health v. Bloomberg

Petitioner NYCOSH requested workers' compensation records from the New York City Mayor's office and Law Department via a Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request, seeking raw data on workplace injuries as mandated by Administrative Code § 12-127. Both agencies denied the request, providing only an annual report and claiming the raw data was not maintained in a single responsive record and would be burdensome to produce. NYCOSH initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, which the Supreme Court dismissed. The Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the Supreme Court applied an incorrect standard of review. It further found the City's claim of statutory exemption under Workers' Compensation Law § 110-a invalid but noted the personal privacy exemption under Public Officers Law § 87 (2) (b), requiring redaction. The court ordered a hearing to determine if retrieving electronic records constituted 'simple manipulation' or new record creation, and if producing hard copies would impose an undue burden, thereby reinstating the petition in part.

Freedom of Information Law (FOIL)Public RecordsWorkers' Compensation RecordsData PrivacyUndue BurdenElectronic Records DisclosureGovernment TransparencyCPLR Article 78 ProceedingNew York Appellate DivisionAgency Records
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 23, 2015

People v. Doe

Defendant, charged with assault and harassment after biting a security officer at an HIV/AIDS Services Administration (HASA) location, filed a motion to seal court papers and to prevent the complainant from referencing defendant's alleged HIV status, citing Public Health Law § 2780 et seq. The defendant argued that the security officer, as an agent of HASA, was bound by confidentiality provisions regarding HIV-related information. The court determined that Article 27-F of the Public Health Law applies only to persons who provide health or social services, a category that did not include the complainant security officer. Consequently, the defendant's motion to preclude the HIV-related testimony was denied. However, the court granted the application to seal the underlying motion papers, citing the sensitive nature of the proceedings and the strong public policy favoring confidentiality.

HIV confidentialityPublic Health Law 27-FAssault third degreeHarassment second degreeConfidentiality of HIV related informationSealing motion papersTestimony preclusionSocial services lawAgency theoryCriminal procedure
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

County of Westchester v. Arfmann

The case concerns public employees of the Westchester County Department of Public Welfare who engaged in a strike starting March 1, 1967, resulting in a motion for a temporary injunction by the County of Westchester. The employees, including the Westchester Welfare Workers Association, picketed county offices due to reported issues like case overloads and poor working conditions. While defendants claimed illness and presented testimony from a psychiatrist regarding 'adult situational stress reactions,' the court found that the mass absence constituted a strike interfering with welfare services. The court ruled that Section 807 of the Labor Law, which forbids injunctions in labor disputes, does not apply to public employees. Consequently, the court granted the plaintiff's motion for a temporary injunction.

Public Sector StrikeTemporary InjunctionLabor DisputeCivil Service LawEmployee ProtestWestchester CountyWelfare DepartmentIllegal StrikePicket LinesGovernment Employees
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Gammons v. City of New York

This appellate decision addresses whether Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1) can serve as a statutory predicate for a police officer's claim under General Municipal Law § 205-e, despite not providing a private right of action. The plaintiff, a police officer, was injured falling from a flatbed truck due to alleged safety defects while on duty. The Supreme Court had dismissed her common-law negligence claim under the firefighter rule but allowed the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim to proceed. The appellate court affirmed, holding that Labor Law § 27-a (3) (a) (1) imposes a clear legal duty on public employers and can be a proper predicate, distinguishing it from risks unique to police work. The court concluded that the alleged defects in the truck constituted occupational hazards redressable under the Public Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA).

Police Officer InjuryGeneral Municipal Law § 205-eLabor Law § 27-aFirefighter RuleCommon-Law NegligenceStatutory PredicateOccupational HazardPublic Employee Safety and Health Act (PESHA)OSHA StandardsAppellate Division
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Canty v. Office of Counsel

The petitioner, an inmate at Southport Correctional Facility, initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding to challenge the denial of his Freedom of Information Law (FOIL) request. He sought accident reports of correction officers injured during a riot at Auburn Correctional Facility. The respondent, Department of Correctional Services, argued that the documents were exempt under privacy and confidentiality statutes, including Public Officers Law and Civil Rights Law. The court granted the petition in part, ordering the production of the upper portion of the accident/injury reports for Correction Officers Peter Kuc, Richard Knight, and Jeffrey W. Claflin, with specific redactions for personal information. However, the court denied access to the lower, medical portion of these reports and workers' compensation benefit election forms, deeming them exempt under various statutes including HIPAA and Public Health Law.

FOILCPLR Article 78Government RecordsPrivacyPublic Officers LawCivil Rights LawCorrection OfficersAccident ReportsInmate PetitionerRedaction
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 24, 2015

In re the Arbitration between Bukowski

Petitioner Michael Bukowski, a correction officer, was dismissed from service after he kicked an inmate, causing serious injuries, and subsequently lied about the incident. An arbitrator sustained the charges but reduced the penalty to a 120-day suspension, which respondent Department of Corrections and Community Supervision (DOCCS) refused to comply with. The Supreme Court confirmed the misconduct findings but vacated the reduced penalty, remitting the matter for a new penalty. On appeal, the higher court affirmed, ruling that the arbitrator's reduced penalty violated strong public policy against inmate abuse and officer dishonesty, as Bukowski not only used excessive force but also repeatedly lied to conceal his actions. The case was remitted for the imposition of an appropriate penalty, taking into account the public policy implications of the officer's misconduct and deceit.

Corporal PunishmentExcessive ForceInmate AbuseArbitration AwardPublic Policy ExceptionCorrectional Officer MisconductDishonestyPenalty MitigationJudicial ReviewCollective Bargaining Agreement
References
14
Case No. ADJ2414146 (ANA 0407600)
Regular
Oct 20, 2008

JOSEPH MORENO vs. COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES/PUBLIC SAFETY

This case involves a Petition for Reconsideration filed by the Defendant, County of Los Angeles/Public Safety, regarding an order for temporary disability benefits. The Board dismissed the petition, finding no order was issued under the case number cited by the Defendant, and also noting the underlying order merely approved a stipulation voluntarily entered into by the Defendant. Even if the petition had been properly filed, reconsideration would have been denied as there was no basis to set aside the Defendant's stipulation.

WCABPetition for ReconsiderationStipulationTemporary DisabilityDate of InjuryJurisdictionExpedited Hearing OrderSelf-InsuredWorkers' Compensation JudgeCase Number
References
0
Case No. 657577/19
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 11, 2025

McMillian v. Out-Look Safety LLC

This case involves an appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, New York County, which granted class certification to plaintiffs Craig McMillian, Eian McMillian, and Victor Ballast. The plaintiffs, identified as non-union construction "flaggers," asserted that they were unlawfully paid below the prevailing wage for public works projects in New York City, having been misclassified as "crossing guards" or "traffic control." The lawsuit targeted Out-Look Safety LLC, Restani Construction Corp., Triumph Construction Corp., Elecnor Hawkeye, LLC, and Safeway Construction Enterprises, LLC. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, determining that the plaintiffs had adequately demonstrated the prerequisites for class certification under CPLR 901(a), including numerosity, commonality, typicality, and superiority. Additionally, the Appellate Division concurred that the Supreme Court's modified class definition successfully circumvented the creation of an impermissible "fail-safe" class.

Class certificationPrevailing wage disputeConstruction flaggersMisclassificationCPLR 901(a) factorsNumerosityCommonalityTypicalitySuperiorityFail safe class
References
15
Showing 1-10 of 4,505 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