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

Williams v. New York City Transit Authority

The plaintiff in a personal injury action against the New York City Transit Authority sought discovery of accident reports and rules/regulations. The defendants moved for a protective order to vacate portions of the plaintiff's discovery notice. The court, presided over by Louis B. Heller, J., ruled that accident reports prepared prior to the institution of suit and not in preparation for trial are proper items for discovery, citing precedent. However, the court granted the motion to deny discovery of the defendant's rules and regulations concerning train operation and the Transit Workers Union's rules and regulations, deeming them immaterial and unnecessary to the bus accident case. The motion was denied in all other respects.

Personal InjuryDiscoveryProtective OrderAccident ReportsTransit AuthorityCPLR 3122CPLR 3101Material Prepared for LitigationBus AccidentRules and Regulations
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Rivera v. New York City Transit Authority

The dissenting opinion concerns a wrongful death case where Milton Rivera was struck and killed by a subway train after falling from a platform on January 11, 1980. The plaintiff alleged the train's speed was excessive and the motorman delayed braking. Plaintiff's expert estimated the train speed at 19-22 mph and suggested the motorman had ample time to react. The defendant's expert concurred on speed but argued it was reasonable and necessary due to a track incline, and that the relevant transit rule did not apply to passenger trains. The dissent argued for reversal of the judgment, citing four main errors: the trial court's refusal to charge on emergency situation law, the jury's verdict being against the weight of evidence due to speculative expert testimony, the improper introduction of over 150 transit rules without guidance (including an inadmissible one), and an excessive $2 million award for wrongful death which deviated from reasonable compensation based on the deceased's earnings and life expectancy.

Wrongful DeathSubway AccidentExcessive SpeedMotorman NegligenceJury InstructionsEmergency DoctrineExpert TestimonyAdmissibility of EvidenceTransit Authority RulesExcessive Damages
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
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

Crosland v. New York City Transit Authority

This case addresses whether a public carrier can be held civilly liable when its employees witness a passenger being attacked and fail to intervene or summon aid. Steven Crosland, Jr., a student, was beaten to death by hoodlums in a New York City subway station. His representatives sued the New York City Transit Authority, alleging failure to provide police presence and employee negligence. While the court affirmed that the Transit Authority owed no special duty and its internal rule 85 was inadmissible, it held that the Authority is not entirely immune from liability. The decision clarifies that the failure of an employee to summon aid without risk to themselves, while observing an injury being inflicted, is beyond governmental immunity. The court balanced the potential burden on the Authority against the policies of victim compensation and general deterrence.

Public Carrier LiabilitySubway ViolenceEmployee NegligenceGovernmental Immunity LimitsDuty to AidThird-Party AssaultTransit Authority LawSummary Judgment StandardAppellate ReviewCommon Carrier Duty
References
16
Case No. 732 F. Supp. 81
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 01, 1990

Burka v. New York City Transit Authority

This class action, initiated in 1985, challenged the New York City Transit Authority's (TA) marijuana testing procedures for employees and applicants. A partial settlement was proposed in October 1989, specifically addressing due process claims for a subclass of plaintiffs tested by the Laboratory for Chromatography (LFC) between January and September 1984. The settlement included expungement of adverse findings, eligibility for reinstatement/hiring, restoration of benefits, compensation (up to $25,000 for terminated, $5,000 for suspended), and arbitration provisions. The court reviewed several objections, approving amendments related to 'time in service' requirements for competitive examinations and handling job titles that no longer exist. A key ruling from the court was the inclusion of 'constructively terminated' employees—those compelled to resign due to LFC test results—within the settlement's definition of 'terminated employees,' mandating notice to the class and establishing arbitration for these claims. Ultimately, the court approved the settlement and its amendments, deeming them fair, adequate, and reasonable under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e) standards.

Class Action SettlementMarijuana Testing ProceduresDue Process ClaimsConstructive DischargeEmployment LawCivil RightsFederal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e)Southern District of New YorkNew York City Transit AuthorityLabor Relations
References
29
Case No. 132 AD3d 127
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 11, 2015

Burlington Insurance v. NYC Transit Authority

Burlington Insurance Company sought a declaration that NYC Transit Authority (NYCTA) and Metropolitan Transit Authority (MTA) were not additional insureds under a policy issued to Breaking Solutions, a subcontractor. The underlying claim arose from an injury to a NYCTA employee caused by a Breaking Solutions excavator during a subway project. Burlington argued that coverage required Breaking Solutions' negligence. The Appellate Division, First Department, reversed the Supreme Court's decision, holding that additional insured endorsements triggered by "acts or omissions" do not necessitate a finding of the named insured's negligence. Consequently, NYCTA and MTA were entitled to coverage, and the anti-subrogation rule barred Burlington's indemnification claim against NYCTA.

Additional Insured EndorsementInsurance Coverage DisputeContractual IndemnificationAnti-Subrogation RuleSubcontractor LiabilityActs or Omissions ClauseNegligence RequirementAppellate Court DecisionCommercial General Liability PolicyConstruction Accident
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 02, 1987

Claim of Pearson v. New York City Transit Authority

A New York City Transit Police Officer became ill while on duty and was directed by his supervisor to go home and report to the Transit Authority clinic the following morning. While driving his own vehicle to the clinic, the claimant was involved in an automobile accident, giving rise to a claim for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge initially disallowed the claim, but the Workers’ Compensation Board reversed this decision, finding that the injury arose out of and in the course of employment. The employer appealed, contending that the injury did not arise out of and in the course of employment. The appellate court disagreed, applying the 'special errand' exception to the general rule that risks of travel to and from work are not incidents of employment, and affirmed the Board's decision.

Workers' CompensationSpecial Errand DoctrineCourse of EmploymentAutomobile AccidentInjury En Route to ClinicEmployer BenefitMedical Appointment TravelTransit Police OfficerWorkers' Compensation Board AppealOff-Premises Injury
References
9
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
Dec 03, 2015

Coleman v. New York City Transit Authority

This case involves an appeal regarding judgments entered after a jury trial against the New York City Transit Authority and Annie M. Canty. The Appellate Division, First Department, addressed two separate judgments for plaintiffs Diane Coleman and Dorothy Lemon. For Diane Coleman, the award for past pain and suffering was modified from $1.25 million to $1 million, with the rest affirmed. For Dorothy Lemon, the future lost earnings award was reduced from $728,000 to $520,000 over 25 years, while other awards for pain and suffering and past lost earnings were affirmed. The court also affirmed the trial court's evidentiary rulings, including the redaction of a social worker's statement from hospital records and the preclusion of expert testimony due to late disclosure.

Damages ReductionPain and Suffering AwardLost Earnings CalculationAppellate ReviewJury TrialEvidentiary RulingsExpert Witness PreclusionHospital Records AdmissibilityBiomechanical ExpertsAccident Reconstruction
References
11
Showing 1-10 of 11,030 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