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

Essig v. United States

Plaintiffs Robert and Jacqueline Essig sued the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act for personal injuries Robert sustained in a bicycle-vehicle collision involving a government vehicle. The vehicle was driven by Special Agent Edward P. Hamill of the DEA, who was intoxicated after leaving his office bar but was still on duty, attempting to arrange an undercover meeting. The collision occurred while Hamill was commuting in a government-issued vehicle, authorized for official use and home-to-office travel. The Court found the United States vicariously liable to the plaintiffs, concluding that Hamill was acting within the scope of his employment and using the vehicle with express permission. This liability was established under both New York's doctrine of respondeat superior and Vehicle and Traffic Law § 388(1), with a trial on damages still pending.

Federal Tort Claims ActVicarious LiabilityScope of EmploymentRespondeat SuperiorVehicle and Traffic LawGovernment LiabilityDEA AgentDrunk DrivingBicycle AccidentCommuting
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. State of New York

The United States sued the State of New York and several state entities, including SBOE, SUNY, and CUNY, alleging violations of the National Voter Registration Act of 1993 (NVRA). The core issue was whether state-funded Disabled Student Services (DSS) offices at public colleges and universities, including SUNY and CUNY campuses and community colleges, must be designated as mandatory voter registration agencies (VRAs) under 42 U.S.C. § 1973gg-5(a)(2)(B). The State defendants argued these offices were not 'primarily engaged' in serving persons with disabilities, and that the NVRA did not apply to them. The Court rejected the defendants' arguments regarding subject matter jurisdiction and the interpretation of the NVRA, citing legislative intent and prior circuit court decisions. The Court concluded that DSS offices at all SUNY and CUNY campuses and their respective community colleges are indeed state-funded programs primarily engaged in providing services to persons with disabilities, and therefore must be designated as mandatory VRAs. The plaintiff's motion for summary judgment was granted.

National Voter Registration Act (NVRA)Voter Registration Agencies (VRAs)Disabled Student Services (DSS)State-funded programsPublic universitiesCommunity collegesFederalismSummary judgmentDeclaratory reliefInjunctive relief
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 20, 2018

United States v. Peralta

This case concerns defendant Abner Peralta's motions to suppress evidence and dismiss his indictment in a federal drug trafficking case. Peralta was investigated for cocaine distribution, and a search warrant, based on Agent Phelan's affidavit, led to the discovery of drug-related evidence. Peralta contended that Agent Phelan's affidavit contained material inaccuracies and omissions, arguing for a Franks hearing. He also sought dismissal of the indictment on double jeopardy grounds, citing prior state charges for the same conduct. The court denied both motions, finding that Peralta failed to meet the 'substantial preliminary showing' required for a Franks hearing and that the dual sovereignty doctrine, which treats state and federal governments as separate sovereigns, precluded his double jeopardy claim.

Drug TraffickingCocaine DistributionSearch WarrantProbable CauseSuppression MotionFranks v. DelawareFourth AmendmentDouble JeopardyDual SovereigntyFederal Criminal Procedure
References
28
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 1984

Harris v. State

Adrienne D., a mentally disabled individual with a history of epileptic seizures, suffered severe burns in a State-certified family care home bathroom with a locked door that prevented outside access during an epileptic seizure. The Court of Claims initially found the State vicariously liable through its agents, the McNairs, the family care providers. On appeal, the court rejected the vicarious liability argument, establishing that family care providers are independent contractors. However, the court affirmed the judgment against the State based on its direct negligence in failing to provide a reasonably safe environment given Adrienne's known medical condition and the foreseeable risks posed by the non-accessible bathroom lock. The court emphasized the State's duty to protect patients while acknowledging the goals of normalization programs.

Mental Hygiene LawState LiabilityDirect NegligenceFamily Care HomeEpilepsyPersonal InjuryBurn InjuryForeseeabilityIndependent ContractorVicarious Liability
References
18
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08595 [156 AD3d 1043]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 07, 2017

New York State Workers' Compensation Board v. Any-Time Home Care Inc.

The New York State Workers' Compensation Board, acting as administrator for a dissolved self-insured trust, initiated an action to recover a $133 million cumulative deficit from former trust members. Various defendants sought to dismiss the complaint, asserting claims were time-barred by a three-year statute of limitations for statutory liabilities, failed to adequately state claims against individual partners, and were barred by the doctrine of laches. The Supreme Court denied these motions. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's order, ruling that the claims were contractual, subject to a six-year limitation period, and that laches did not apply against the state enforcing a public right. The court also found the complaint sufficiently specific regarding the liability of individual defendants.

Workers' Compensation LawSelf-Insurance TrustJoint and Several LiabilityStatute of LimitationsContractual LiabilityLaches DoctrineAppellate ReviewGroup Self-InsurerDeficit RecoveryPartnership Liability
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 26, 1985

Brown v. State

A claimant, formerly a supervisor, initiated legal action against the State of New York and four individual state employees, asserting claims under the State Human Rights Law and for intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claimant alleged persistent verbal and sexual harassment by a co-worker, Albert Morelli, and further contended that supervisors failed to intervene, leading to her alleged retaliatory "constructive termination" in October 1983. The Court of Claims dismissed the actions against the individual employees and the emotional distress claim but permitted the Human Rights Law cause of action, rejecting the State's defenses based on the Statute of Limitations and election of remedies. On cross appeals, the higher court affirmed the dismissal of the emotional distress claim, citing public policy against such suits for official conduct, and upheld the finding that the Human Rights Law claim was not time-barred or precluded by election of remedies.

Sexual harassmentVerbal harassmentRetaliationHuman Rights LawIntentional infliction of emotional distressConstructive terminationStatute of LimitationsElection of remediesRespondeat superiorPublic policy defense
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bounds v. State

The case involves an appeal concerning a claimant injured while participating in the Work Experience Program (WEP) at Cayuga Lake State Park, subsequently suing the State of New York under Labor Law § 240 (1). The initial Court of Claims decision granted partial summary judgment to the claimant. However, the appellate court determined that while the claimant was an employee of Seneca County, a triable issue of fact existed regarding whether he was also a 'special employee' of the State of New York. This 'special employee' status is crucial as it could invoke the exclusive remedy provisions of the Workers' Compensation Law, thereby barring his claim. Consequently, the appellate court modified the judgment by denying both the claimant's motion for partial summary judgment and the defendant's cross-motion for summary judgment, affirming the judgment as modified.

Workers' CompensationSpecial EmployeeLabor LawScaffolding AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPublic AssistanceWork Experience ProgramEmployer LiabilityStatutory Interpretation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hale v. New York State Department of Mental Health

Curtis Hale, Jr. initiated an action under Title VII, alleging racial discrimination after his termination as a Mental Hygiene Therapy Aide at the Bronx Children’s Psychiatric Center. He claimed the Civil Service Employee Association failed to provide adequate representation and the New York State Department of Mental Health breached contractual obligations. The court, treating the State's motion to dismiss as one for summary judgment, found Hale's Title VII claims time-barred. His EEOC complaint was filed beyond the 180 or 300-day statutory limitations period, which commenced from the notice of termination (December 8, 1978), not the actual discharge date. Additionally, the court determined it lacked subject-matter jurisdiction over Hale’s state law breach of contract claim against the State, citing an absence of diversity and no federal question under the Labor Management Relations Act. Consequently, the court granted the State’s motion, dismissing the complaint against the New York State Department of Mental Health.

Racial DiscriminationTitle VIIEmployment TerminationStatute of LimitationsSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractSubject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionEleventh AmendmentCivil Service
References
10
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01453 [159 AD3d 674]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 07, 2018

Grasso v. New York State Thruway Auth.

This case involves four consolidated personal injury claims filed by Jerry A. Grasso, Jr., John Sullivan, Jr., Cathy Marl, and Louis Centolanza against the New York State Thruway Authority (NYSTA). The claimants alleged violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6), and common-law negligence, stemming from injuries sustained during a highway construction project. The Court of Claims initially granted NYSTA's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all claims based on collateral estoppel. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the dismissal of claims under Labor Law § 241 (6) and for punitive damages, finding collateral estoppel applicable and punitive damages barred by sovereign immunity. However, the Appellate Division modified the order by denying the dismissal of claims alleging Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence, concluding that collateral estoppel did not apply to NYSTA as a property owner and that NYSTA acted in a proprietary capacity, thus subject to tort liability.

Labor Law § 200Labor Law § 241 (6)Common-law NegligenceCollateral EstoppelSummary JudgmentSovereign ImmunityGovernmental Function ImmunityProprietary FunctionPersonal InjuryConstruction Site Accident
References
33
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cluett, Peabody & Co. v. New York State Division of Human Rights

This case addresses whether an arbitration proceeding, which determined a job classification was not discriminatory under a collective bargaining agreement but explicitly stated it lacked authority to rule on Human Rights Law violations, bars a subsequent proceeding before the State Division of Human Rights. Employees Betty Lingle and Joan Skinner initially filed a grievance and later complaints with the State Division of Human Rights alleging sex discrimination after their termination. Following an arbitration decision that denied relief but did not address Human Rights Law issues, their employer, Cluett, Peabody & Co., Inc., sought a judgment declaring the Division lacked jurisdiction due to election of remedies. The court, presided over by John W. Sweeny, J., held that the arbitration did not constitute an election of remedies precluding the State Division from proceeding, as the arbitrator had no authority to decide Human Rights Law issues. Consequently, the employer's motion to dismiss the complaint was granted, allowing the Human Rights Commission to continue with the employees' complaints.

DiscriminationSex DiscriminationHuman Rights LawArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementExclusive RemedyJurisdictionState Division of Human RightsSeniority RightsElection of Remedies
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 10,888 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