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
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

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. 2017 NY Slip Op 05446 [152 AD3d 530]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 05, 2017

Matter of Transit Workers Union, Local 100 v. New York City Tr. Auth.

The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed a Supreme Court judgment that denied the petition of Transit Workers Union, Local 100, and nonparty Victor Martinez to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award upheld the termination of Victor Martinez's employment as a bus driver by the New York City Transit Authority due to an incident. The court found that the arbitration award was rational, supported by evidence, and did not violate strong public policy or exceed the arbitrator's power. The penalty of termination was also deemed not irrational.

Arbitration AwardEmployment TerminationCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial ReviewAppellate ReviewCPLR Article 75Arbitrator's PowerPublic PolicyBus Driver MisconductRationality Standard
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Straker v. Metropolitan Transit Authority

Carl B. Straker, a former NYCTA train operator, challenged his termination following a mandatory drug test, alleging he was unable to provide a urine sample due to a medical condition. His amended complaint cited procedural due process violations (Count I), racial discrimination and conspiracy (Count II), misrepresentation by NYCTA (Count III), and disability discrimination under the Rehabilitation Act (Count IV) against NYCTA, plus a breach of fair representation (Count V) against the Transit Workers Union. The court dismissed Count I, dismissed Count II with leave to amend, denied dismissal for Counts III and IV while demanding a more definite statement for Count III, and denied TWU’s motion to dismiss Count V, reinterpreting it as a state law claim. Metropolitan Transit Authority, though named, was dismissed as a party due to non-existence.

Employment DiscriminationProcedural Due ProcessRacial DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationRehabilitation ActConspiracyDuty of Fair RepresentationMotion to DismissAmended ComplaintDrug Testing
References
52
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

Gray v. New York City Transit Authority

The petitioner, a signal maintainer’s helper, was terminated from employment by the New York City Transit Authority after a urine test revealed marihuana use, aligning with T.O.P. No. 616, § 6.9 for employees with less than two years of service. The petitioner challenged this dismissal as arbitrary, citing a coworker, Joseph Joyce, who received a lesser penalty. Initially, the Supreme Court, Kings County, vacated the dismissal and remitted the matter for a new penalty. However, the appellate court reversed this decision, finding that Joyce’s lenient punishment occurred after the Transit Authority had implemented a more forgiving policy. Consequently, the court concluded that the petitioner failed to demonstrate arbitrary enforcement at the time of his dismissal, confirmed the Transit Authority's determination, and dismissed the petition on the merits.

Employment TerminationMarihuana UseDrug TestingCivil Service LawCPLR Article 78Arbitrary and CapriciousPolicy ChangeRetroactive ApplicationAppellate ReviewPublic Employee Dismissal
References
3
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. 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
Sep 10, 1956

New York Transit Authority v. Loos

The New York City Transit Authority (plaintiff) sought an injunction against the Motormen’s Benevolent Association, Inc. and individual motormen (defendants) to prevent them from striking or instigating a strike. The plaintiff argued that a strike would violate the Condon-Wadlin Act (Civil Service Law, § 22-a) and cause irreparable damage as the Transit Authority performs a governmental function. The defendants cross-moved to dismiss the complaint, enjoin the plaintiff from recognizing the Transport Workers’ Union, recognize the Motormen’s Benevolent Association, and enjoin enforcement of the Condon-Wadlin Act. The court granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pendente lite, affirming the temporary stay, and denied all of the defendants' cross-applications. The court emphasized that rapid transit operation is a vital governmental function in New York City, making strikes by its employees unlawful, both under common law and the Condon-Wadlin Act. An early trial was ordered.

InjunctionPublic EmployeesStrike ProhibitionCondon-Wadlin ActGovernmental FunctionRapid TransitLabor RelationsMotormenNew York CityCollective Bargaining
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cambizaca v. New York City Transit Authority

The decedent, working for a contractor, was fatally injured on a subway platform by a broken angle grinder part while performing work for the New York City Transit Authority. The plaintiff, as administratrix of the decedent's estate, filed suit against the New York City Transit Authority alleging common-law negligence and violations of Labor Law §§ 200 and 241 (6). The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the claims. The court found no supervisory control by the defendant over the work methods for the negligence and Labor Law § 200 claims, and the plaintiff failed to identify a viable Industrial Code provision for the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim.

Common-law negligenceLabor Lawsubway accidentworkplace injurysummary judgmentcontractor liabilitysupervisory controlIndustrial Codeunsafe work environmentconstruction safety
References
8
Showing 1-10 of 3,193 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