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. 2025 NY Slip Op 06602 [243 AD3d 886]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 26, 2025

Anjos v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC

Jose Dos Anjos, an employee of D&J Concrete Corp., was injured at a construction site managed by Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC, and general-contracted by Andron Construction Corp. He slipped on accumulated rainwater while operating a power saw, cutting his left forearm. Anjos and his wife sued for common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court denied both the plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment on Labor Law § 241 (6) and the defendants' cross-motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division reversed the Supreme Court's order regarding the plaintiffs' appeal, granting their motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action, finding a violation of 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d) and no triable issue of fact from the defendants. The Court affirmed the denial of the defendants' cross-motion concerning common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6).

Construction AccidentSlip and FallRainwater HazardLabor Law 241(6)12 NYCRR 23-1.7(d)Duty to Provide Safe Work PlaceProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCommon-Law Negligence
References
18
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 07123 [211 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Lambert v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

The case involves Joseph Lambert, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits for work-related repetitive use injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded a schedule loss of use (SLU) for his right arm, left arm, and right leg, payable weekly. Subsequently, Lambert requested the remaining SLU award be paid in a lump sum, which the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, appealed this decision, arguing that a lump sum request must be made at the time of the initial award. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) do not impose time limitations on an injured employee's request for a lump sum payment of an SLU award.

Schedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityClaimant RightsEmployer AppealLegislative IntentPayment Timing
References
8
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 00826 [224 AD3d 527]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 15, 2024

York v. Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC

Plaintiff Kenneth York, an employee of LB Electric Co., LLC (LBE), was injured while attempting to cross between two barges at a worksite on the Tappan Zee Bridge, where Tappan Zee Constructors, LLC (TZC) was the general contractor. He slipped on an alleged icy condition in the dark, almost falling into the water due to the absence of a required gangway. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified a lower court's order, granting plaintiff summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that his injuries were related to an elevation-related risk despite slipping at the same level, and that the lack of a gangway was a proximate cause. The court also denied TZC's motion to dismiss the Labor Law § 240 (1) claim and denied TZC's cross-motion for contractual indemnification against LBE as premature, citing factual issues regarding TZC's notice of the dangerous conditions. The denial of TZC's motion to dismiss Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims was affirmed.

Labor Law § 240 (1)Labor Law § 241 (6)Industrial Code § 23-1.7 (d)Summary JudgmentElevation-related RiskContractual IndemnificationProximate CauseIcy ConditionGangwayAppellate Review
References
9
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06564 [132 AD3d 149]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Matter of Phillips v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

This case concerns the termination of bus driver Tony Aiken by the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Transit Authority) for sexual harassment. Aiken, also a union official, was on union-paid release time when the termination was imposed. His union challenged the discipline, arguing the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) protected employees on release time from disciplinary action. An arbitrator sided with the union, ordering Aiken's reinstatement. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. However, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA and the resulting reinstatement violated a well-defined public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the employer's legal obligation under Title VII and New York Human Rights Laws to prevent and address sexual harassment, and concluded that upholding the award would impede the Transit Authority's ability to fulfill this duty and deter future misconduct.

Sexual harassmentEmployment terminationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration awardPublic policy exceptionReinstatementUnion-paid release timeWorkplace disciplineTitle VIINew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01980, 525411
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Portlette v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

Claimant Oneshiua Portlette, a bus operator, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. Initially, her employer, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, paid benefits for injuries Portlette reported sustained in a bus accident. However, the employer later suspended payments and raised fraud concerns after video evidence contradicted Portlette's account of the incident and her injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board found that Portlette failed to prove a causally-related injury and made material misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's consideration of the employer's evidence despite a lack of timely notice of controversy, and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions which supported that no causally-related injury occurred.

Workers' CompensationCausationFraudVideo EvidenceMedical OpinionNotice of ControversyPreclusionAppellate ReviewBus OperatorInjury Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lorelli v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Petitioners, employees of the New York City Transit Authority (TA), initiated an Article 78 proceeding to compel the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA) to make promotions from their 1963 Surface Line Dispatcher list. They argued that MABSTOA, described as a TA subsidiary, should be subject to civil service requirements, and appointments should come from the TA promotion list. MABSTOA, joined by Local 100 of the Transit Workers Union, opposed the application, asserting its independent, temporary status and the distinct employment terms for its workers. The court denied the petition, ruling that MABSTOA's temporary operational status, established during an emergency acquisition of bus lines, justified its exclusion from civil service status as per Public Authorities Law § 1203-a. The court also found no intent for the TA promotion list to cover MABSTOA vacancies and upheld the validity of the legislative provision.

Public Authorities LawCivil Service LawArticle 78 ProceedingPromotionTemporary EmploymentPublic Benefit CorporationSubsidiaryConstitutional LawNew York City Transit AuthorityManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
References
11
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
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00466
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 2023

Matter of Kennedy v. 3rd Track Constructors

Claimant Alastair Kennedy, an operating engineer, sustained work-related injuries in October 2019 after falling into a hole at a job site, filing for workers' compensation benefits for left shoulder, foot, and ankle injuries. The employer's carrier accepted the claim for foot and ankle but contested neck and left shoulder injuries, also raising a Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a violation. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Workers' Compensation Board found claimant's testimony regarding the accident and prior injuries not credible, denying the claims for neck and left shoulder injuries and imposing mandatory and discretionary penalties under Workers' Compensation Law § 114-a. On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's findings regarding the non-causal relation of neck and left shoulder injuries and the mandatory penalty for misrepresentations. However, the Court reversed the discretionary penalty of total disqualification from future wage loss benefits, deeming it disproportionate to the offense, modifying and affirming the Board's decision as so modified.

Workers' CompensationInjury ClaimCredibility AssessmentMisrepresentationWorkers' Compensation Law § 114-a ViolationMandatory PenaltyDiscretionary PenaltyWage Loss BenefitsCausal RelationshipMedical Evidence
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 06, 2009

D'Alessandro v. Aviation Constructors, Inc.

The plaintiff, injured at a construction site managed by Aviation Constructors, Inc. and employed by Dovin Construction Company, Inc., received workers' compensation benefits. Subsequently, the plaintiff filed a personal injury lawsuit against Aviation. Aviation and Dovin sought summary judgment, arguing the action was barred by Workers’ Compensation Law due to the plaintiff's status as a special employee of Aviation. The Supreme Court initially granted their motions. However, on appeal, the order granting summary judgment was reversed. The appellate court found that Aviation and Dovin failed to provide prima facie proof that the plaintiff was a special employee, thus denying their motions to dismiss the complaint.

Special Employment DoctrineWorkers' Compensation ExclusivitySummary Judgment AppealPersonal Injury LitigationConstruction Site AccidentAppellate Court RulingEmployer Control TestSubcontractor LiabilityPrima Facie BurdenNew York Law
References
9
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00250 [234 AD3d 1141]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 16, 2025

Matter of Waddy v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Auth.

Claimant Jenise M. Waddy, a transit bus operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for posttraumatic stress disorder following an incident where an agitated man attempted to forcibly enter her bus, damaging it. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially found a compensable injury, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed, ruling that the stress experienced was not greater than that of similarly situated bus operators. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the incident was within the reasonable expectations of a bus operator's normal work environment. A dissenting opinion argued against categorizing such a dangerous event as "normal" work.

Workers' Compensation LawPosttraumatic Stress Disorder (PTSD)Compensable InjuryWorkplace AccidentBus OperatorPsychological InjuryStressAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceNormal Work Environment
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 126 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