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

Fontus v. D & J School Bus

Carole Fontus was allegedly injured after being struck by a school bus owned by D & J School Bus and operated by DT Transportation, Inc., with Pasquale Amodei as the driver. Fontus and her husband filed a personal injury lawsuit. The defendants raised a fifth affirmative defense, claiming Fontus and Amodei were coemployees under Workers’ Compensation Law § 29 (6), thus barring the action. The Supreme Court initially granted the plaintiffs’ motion to strike this defense. However, the appellate court modified the order, denying the plaintiffs' motion to strike the fifth affirmative defense, citing unresolved issues of fact regarding the employment relationship between the parties.

Personal InjurySchool Bus AccidentCo-employmentWorkers' CompensationAffirmative DefenseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewFactual DisputeEmployment RelationshipMotor Vehicle Accident
References
2
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 02521 [227 AD3d 776]
Regular Panel Decision
May 08, 2024

Dolores v. Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc.

Cleotilde Dolores, the plaintiff, sustained personal injuries when her school bus was struck from the rear by another school bus owned by Grandpa's Bus Co., Inc., and driven by Samuel Bercy. She subsequently filed a personal injury action against the defendants. The defendants sought summary judgment, contending that the parties shared a special employment relationship with nonparty Logan Bus Payroll Systems, Inc., which would invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law and bar the action. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the defendants' motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the lower court's decision, ruling that the defendants failed to meet their prima facie burden to establish the existence of such a special employment relationship.

Personal InjurySummary JudgmentWorkers' Compensation LawSpecial Employment RelationshipEmployer LiabilityBus AccidentRear-End CollisionAppellate PracticePrima Facie BurdenKings County
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 03854 [161 AD3d 1188]
Regular Panel Decision
May 30, 2018

Owens v. Jea Bus Co., Inc.

The plaintiff, a school bus matron, sustained injuries in a collision and subsequently filed for workers' compensation benefits. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that Jea Bus Co., Inc. was her employer, and she began receiving benefits from their insurer. The plaintiff then commenced a personal injury action against Jea Bus Co., Inc., and Tebaldo A. Sibilia, the bus driver and a Smart Pick, Inc. employee. The defendants moved for summary judgment arguing the exclusivity provision of the Workers' Compensation Law. The Supreme Court denied this motion, finding triable issues of fact. The Appellate Division modified the order, granting summary judgment to Jea Bus Co., Inc., on the grounds of workers' compensation exclusivity, as the plaintiff had accepted benefits from them. However, the court denied summary judgment for Sibilia, finding he failed to establish prima facie that he was a special employee of Jea Bus Co., Inc., and thus not entitled to co-employee immunity.

Personal InjuryWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary JudgmentAppellate PracticeCo-Employee ImmunitySpecial Employee StatusGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Board JurisdictionEmployer LiabilityContribution and Indemnification
References
32
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Montauk Bus Co., Inc. v. Utica City School Dist.

Montauk Bus Company, Inc. ("Montauk") sued the Utica City School District and other defendants under federal and state law following the termination of its bus contract. Montauk alleged that the School District improperly rejected its bids, imposed new requirements, and spread false rumors to prevent Montauk from performing the contract, favoring local competitors. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim. The court dismissed Montauk's federal claims (Contract Clause and Substantive Due Process) for failure to state a claim, finding no legislative action to impair the contract and no protected property interest in the contract's non-termination. Consequently, the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the remaining state law claims and counterclaims.

Contract DisputeSchool Transportation42 U.S.C. § 1983Contract ClauseDue ProcessSubstantive Due ProcessEleventh Amendment ImmunityMotion to DismissSubject Matter JurisdictionGovernment Contracts
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mount Sinai Union Free School District v. Board of Education Port Jefferson Public Schools

Mount Sinai and Port Jefferson School Districts had a long-standing contract for Mt. Sinai to send its high school students to Port Jefferson. Following a deterioration of relations and an increase in Mt. Sinai's student population, Mt. Sinai decided to build its own high school. New York Education Law § 3014-c was enacted, requiring sending districts to consider teachers from receiving districts as their own employees. Mt. Sinai challenged this statute, alleging various constitutional violations. The court dismissed claims by teacher, parent/student, and taxpayer plaintiffs for lack of standing, and then dismissed the remaining Contract Clause claim by Mt. Sinai, granting summary judgment to the defendants.

School DistrictsTeacher TenureEducation LawContract ClauseDue ProcessEqual ProtectionStandingAbstention DoctrineSummary JudgmentFederal Civil Procedure
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lennon v. Cornwall Central School District

This case involves a dissent concerning a negligent supervision lawsuit. In 2010, two sixth-grade students, Caitlin Lennon and Cara D. Dimedio, were allegedly injured when 11-year-old Ryan Arzu collided with them during a school field trip to the Bronx Zoo. Their parents, Sharon Lennon and Christopher Dimedio, sued the Cornwall Central School District and chaperone Daisy Melendez. The School District moved for summary judgment, arguing they lacked specific knowledge of Ryan's prior dangerous conduct and the incident was an unforeseeable impulsive act. The Supreme Court denied this motion, but P.J. Eng dissents, asserting that the School District met its burden to demonstrate no liability and the motion for summary judgment should have been granted.

Negligent supervisionSchool liabilitySummary judgmentField trip injuryStudent collisionProximate causeNotice of dangerous conductImpulsive actBronx ZooAppellate dissent
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lawson v. Greenburgh Central School District Number 7

Lawson, a school bus driver for Shore Transportation Co., was dismissed after the Central School District alleged erratic driving and demanded his removal. Shore had a contract with the district giving the latter approval rights over drivers. Lawson initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, converted to a declaratory judgment action, to annul his dismissal and compel the appellants (Central School District and Shore) to grant an evidentiary hearing. The appellants' motion to dismiss was denied. The court affirmed the denial, ruling that the school district's substantial contractual and statutory control over driver employment, even without direct employment, could entitle Lawson to procedural due process protections, thus stating a valid cause of action for a hearing.

Procedural Due ProcessEmployment TerminationDeclaratory JudgmentCPLR Article 78School Bus DriverContractual ControlEvidentiary HearingAppellate ReviewEmployer-Employee RelationshipConstitutional Rights
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 16, 2004

Andrew T.B. v. Brewster Central School District

This case involves an appeal by Brewster Central School District and Garden Street School from a Supreme Court order that granted a petition for leave to serve a late notice of claim under General Municipal Law § 50-e (5). The claim originated from alleged sexual abuse of an infant on a school bus. The Appellate Division modified the order, denying the mother's individual claim due to the infancy toll being personal to the child, but affirmed the granting of the infant's petition. The court found that petitioners established a reasonable excuse for the delay linked to the infant's age, and that the appellants had actual knowledge of the incident and were not substantially prejudiced by the delay. The order was affirmed with costs to the appellants payable by Patricia B., individually.

Late Notice of ClaimGeneral Municipal Law § 50-e(5)Infant PetitionerSexual AbuseSchool Bus IncidentActual KnowledgePrejudiceReasonable ExcuseInfancy TollDerivative Cause of Action
References
22
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 01869 [181 AD3d 1113]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 16, 2020

Matter of Perry v. All Am. Sch. Bus Corp.

In this workers' compensation case, claimant Diane Perry, a school bus attendant, sustained multiple injuries when she was struck by a motor vehicle while waiting for her assigned bus. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found that her injuries arose from an accident in the course of her employment and made awards. The employer and its carrier appealed to the Workers' Compensation Board, but their application for review was denied because they failed to completely answer question 15 on the RB-89 form, which required specifying the objection and when it was interposed, as mandated by 12 NYCRR 300.13 (b) (1) and (2) (ii). The Board upheld this denial, and the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed both the Board's decision and amended decision, finding no abuse of discretion in the Board's enforcement of its procedural rules.

Workers' Compensation BenefitsAdministrative ReviewApplication DenialRegulatory ComplianceAppellate ProcedureWorkers' Compensation Law JudgeScope of EmploymentMotor Vehicle AccidentInjury CompensationBoard Discretion
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Goff v. Whitehall Central School District

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of a collective bargaining agreement between the Whitehall Central School District and its employees. The dispute centers on whether "snow days" should be included in the calculation of guaranteed minimum payment days for part-time bus drivers (180 days) and cafeteria employees (170 days), even if the employees have already met those minimums through other workdays. The school district denied a grievance, arguing that snow days only count if needed to reach the minimum. Special Term initially reversed the board's decision, asserting that snow days should always be included. However, this appellate court reversed Special Term's judgment, ruling that the contract's intent was to count snow days only when necessary to fulfill the assured minimum number of payment days, and not to provide additional payment once the minimum was achieved. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Collective Bargaining AgreementSnow DaysEmployment ContractWage DisputeSchool DistrictArticle 78 ProceedingContract InterpretationGrievanceAppellate ReviewEmployee Rights
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,523 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