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

2169 Central Ltd. v. New York State Liquor Authority

Petitioners 2169 Central Ltd., operator of Shenanigan's Bar, and its president Lewis D. Cross, challenged a determination by the State Liquor Authority (SLA) which imposed a $3,000 civil penalty for employing unlicensed security guards. The petitioners initiated a CPLR article 78 proceeding, contending that the SLA exceeded its statutory authority and that its determination was not supported by substantial evidence. The court found that the SLA possessed the statutory authority to regulate and penalize licensees for violating its regulations, specifically 9 NYCRR 48.3 regarding conformance with governmental regulations. Furthermore, the court determined that the SLA's decision was supported by substantial evidence, including police investigator testimony, sworn employee statements, and Department of State certifications, which confirmed the employment of unlicensed security guards. Consequently, the court confirmed the SLA's determination and dismissed the petition.

Liquor LicenseUnlicensed Security GuardsCivil PenaltyStatutory AuthoritySubstantial EvidenceAdministrative LawAlbany CountyNew YorkAdult Entertainment ClubLiquor Control Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Public Interest Research Group Straphangers Campaign, Inc. v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) faced a significant budget deficit and implemented fare/toll increases and token booth closures. Public interest groups challenged these decisions, alleging that the MTA's public hearing notices were misleading and incomplete regarding financial details and alternative solutions. Lower courts initially sided with the petitioners, vacating the MTA's actions. However, on appeal, the court reversed these rulings, asserting that the MTA's notices complied with statutory requirements and were neither false nor misleading. The court emphasized the legislative role in setting disclosure standards and affirmed the MTA's authority, especially concerning the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority's toll-fixing powers. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, upholding the MTA's original decisions.

Public TransportationFare IncreaseToll IncreaseBudget DeficitPublic HearingsStatutory ComplianceJudicial ReviewAdministrative LawPublic Authorities LawCPLR Article 78
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 12, 2007

Salvador-Pajaro v. Port Authority

This case involves a Port Authority police officer who sued the Port Authority for personal injuries, alleging an unsafe workplace in New Jersey. The Port Authority's motion for summary judgment dismissing the complaint was initially denied by the Supreme Court, New York County. However, the appellate court unanimously reversed this decision, granting the motion and dismissing the complaint. The court ruled that New York's Labor Law § 27-a, which was the basis for the General Municipal Law § 205-e claim, does not apply to the Port Authority as an Interstate Compact agency, particularly without concurring legislation from New Jersey. Additionally, New York Labor Law provisions concerning workplace safety do not apply to workplaces located outside of New York, even if both the injured worker and the employer are New York domiciliaries.

Interstate Compact AgencyWorkplace SafetyJurisdictionExtraterritorial ApplicationLabor LawGeneral Municipal LawSummary JudgmentPersonal InjuryPort AuthorityEmployer-Employee Relations
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Dreves v. New York Power Authority

Petitioners challenged the New York Power Authority's (NYPA) plan to construct a microwave repeater tower in St. Lawrence County, alleging violations of the State Environmental Quality Review Act (SEQRA) and other statutory and zoning issues. The Supreme Court dismissed seven SEQRA-related causes of action as time-barred but allowed two declaratory relief claims concerning zoning and NYPA's statutory mandate to proceed. On appeal, the court affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, finding that the negative declaration issued by NYPA's Environmental Division Director was valid and that any earlier SEQRA infractions were cured, making the challenges time-barred. The appellate court also upheld the denial of a preliminary injunction and confirmed that the declaratory claims were timely, as the acts giving rise to relief (tower construction and operation) had not yet occurred.

SEQRAEnvironmental ImpactMicrowave TowerStatute of LimitationsDeclaratory ReliefInjunctive ReliefZoning OrdinancesPublic Authorities LawNegative DeclarationEnvironmental Review
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 01785
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 09, 2017

Henvill v. Metropolitan Transportation Authority

Winston Henvill appealed the dismissal of his complaint and the denial of his petition to vacate an arbitration award, which resulted in the termination of his employment. The Supreme Court had granted defendants' motion to dismiss Henvill's complaint and denied his petition seeking to vacate the arbitration award based on a finding of misconduct. Henvill argued that the Metropolitan Transportation Authority Police Benevolent Association (PBA) breached its duty of fair representation and that the arbitrator's fact-finding was irrational. The Appellate Division affirmed the lower court's decisions, finding no evidence that the PBA's conduct was arbitrary, discriminatory, or in bad faith. Furthermore, the court emphasized that judicial review of arbitration awards is limited to statutory grounds and does not permit reviewing the arbitrator's findings of fact.

Breach of Duty of Fair RepresentationArbitration AwardEmployment TerminationMisconductCPLR Article 75Vacatur of Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationLabor Law
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 18, 2001

Lamuraglia v. New York City Transit Authority

Vincenzo Lamuraglia, a construction worker, was injured after being struck by a New York City Transit Authority bus while working. He and his wife, Rosa Lamuraglia, sued the Transit Authority entities, which then initiated a third-party action against Vincenzo's employer, Premium Landscaping, Inc. A jury found the Transit Authority 65% at fault and Premium 35% at fault, awarding damages for lost earnings, pain and suffering, and loss of services. The Supreme Court reduced some of these awards. On appeal, the judgment was modified, granting a new trial on damages unless the plaintiffs agree to further reductions in their awards for pain and suffering and loss of services. The appellate court also rejected the Transit Authority's arguments regarding jury instructions on pedestrian duty of care and the emergency doctrine.

Personal InjuryNegligenceDamagesJury VerdictAppellate ReviewThird-Party LiabilityComparative FaultWorkplace AccidentBus AccidentDuty of Care
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hilda B. v. New York City Housing Authority

Petitioners, Hilda B. and her infant, sought leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority after Hilda B. was sexually assaulted in her apartment building, and her infant was dropped during the incident. The building reportedly lacked working locks, allowing the perpetrator entry. The incident was reported to management and Housing Police, and a social worker also informed the Housing Authority. Despite this, a formal notice of claim was filed approximately 2.5 months beyond the statutory 90-day period. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, granting petitioners' motion based on evidence of Hilda B.'s psychological inability to seek timely legal advice and the respondent's actual notice of the incident, with no showing of prejudice.

sexual assaultlate notice of claimGeneral Municipal Lawpsychological distresshousing authority negligencestatutory notice periodactual noticeappellate reversalpersonal injurypremises liability
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 1995

Transport Workers Union of America v. New York City Transit Authority

The New York City Transit Authority (TA) appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Kings County, which confirmed two arbitration awards dated July 8, 1993, and January 22, 1994, and denied the TA's cross-petition to vacate the latter. The initial award reinstated an employee following a disciplinary grievance, and a supplemental award granted the employee back pay. The TA argued that the Tripartite Arbitration Board exceeded its authority by issuing the supplemental award without adhering to statutory procedures for modifying original awards (CPLR 7509, 7511[c]). The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order, vacating the confirmation of the January 22, 1994, award and remitting the case for a hearing. This hearing is necessary to determine if the TA had agreed to resubmit the matter, acquiesced in its submission, and was given an opportunity to be heard, which would impact the validity of the supplemental award.

Arbitration AwardCPLR 7510CPLR 7509CPLR 7511Supplemental AwardVacatur of AwardEmployee Disciplinary GrievanceBack PayModification of AwardJurisdiction of Arbitrator
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Samuelsen v. New York City Transit Authority

The case concerns a dispute between Local 100, Transport Workers Union of Greater New York (the Union) and the New York City Transit Authority (TA) and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Authority (MaBSTOA). The Union challenged a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) and a consolidation agreement that aimed to merge MaBSTOA and TA surface transit operations, arguing that these agreements violated Public Authorities Law § 1203-a (3) (b). This law prohibits MaBSTOA employees from becoming, 'for any purpose,' employees of the TA, acquiring civil service status, or becoming members of NYCERS. The Union contended that the agreements effectively made MaBSTOA employees into TA employees, thereby violating the statute. The defendants moved to dismiss the complaint, asserting the validity of the agreements and procedural defenses. The motion court initially dismissed the complaint, but the appellate court reversed this decision, agreeing with the Union's interpretation of the statute and finding that the complaint sufficiently alleged a cause of action.

Workers' RightsCollective BargainingStatutory InterpretationPublic Authorities LawCivil ServiceEmployment LawUnion DisputeConsolidation AgreementEmployer LiabilityDismissal Reversal
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 4,384 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