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

Buckley v. City of New York

This case addresses the continued applicability of the fellow-servant rule in New York. It consolidates two appeals: Buckley v City of New York, involving a police officer shot by a co-worker, and Lawrence v City of New York, where a firefighter was injured by a fellow firefighter. Both plaintiffs secured jury verdicts against the City based on vicarious liability, which the City challenged under the fellow-servant rule. The court reviewed the historical origins and rationales of the rule, noting its significant curtailment by workers' compensation legislation and prior judicial criticism. Ultimately, the court found that the fellow-servant rule no longer serves a valid purpose and imposes an unjust hardship, leading to its complete abolition in New York. The Appellate Division's orders affirming the judgments against the City were affirmed.

abolition of fellow-servant rulerespondeat superiorvicarious liabilityemployer liabilityco-employee negligencepolice officer injuryfirefighter injurycommon law developmentjudicial precedenttort law
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Cividanes v. City of New York

The case concerns a plaintiff who sued the City of New York and two transit authorities for negligence after sustaining an ankle injury from a pothole while alighting a bus. The claim against the City was dismissed due to lack of prior written notice, while the claim against the authorities alleged a breach of duty to provide a safe disembarking location. The dissenting opinion argues that the No-Fault Insurance Law should apply, as the injury arose from the use or operation of a motor vehicle—specifically, the bus driver's negligent positioning. This contrasts with the majority's decision, which affirmed the Appellate Division's order, finding the No-Fault Law inapplicable because the injury did not arise from the use or operation of a motor vehicle. The dissent cites *Manuel v New York City Tr. Auth.* as relevant precedent, distinguishing it from *Walton v Lumbermens Mut. Cas. Co.*

NegligenceNo-Fault Insurance LawMotor Vehicle OperationPothole InjuryBus AccidentProximate CauseDisembarking SafetyDuty of CareAppellate ReviewDissenting Opinion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deneen v. City of New York

The plaintiff, an individual whose union entered into a wage deferral agreement with the City of New York in 1975, sued the city for unpaid wages in Small Claims Court after five years of non-payment. The city sought dismissal, citing the plaintiff's failure to exhaust arbitration remedies and the indefinite suspension of payment due to ambiguities in the agreement. The court distinguished a prior Appellate Term reversal in Albert v City of New York by highlighting the union's bad faith in creating the ambiguous contract and its refusal to represent the plaintiff. The opinion emphasized that the city's delay was unconscionable and that its reliance on arbitration as a defense was procedurally improper. Ultimately, the court denied the city's motion and granted summary judgment to the plaintiff.

Wage DeferralUnion Breach of Fiduciary DutyArbitration ExhaustionSummary JudgmentSmall Claims CourtContract AmbiguityUnpaid WagesDue ProcessCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployee Rights
References
20
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. City of Buffalo

The United States moved to modify a 1979 remedial hiring decree against the City of Buffalo's police and fire departments. This decree, issued after findings of unlawful discrimination against blacks, Spanish-surnamed Americans, and women, required 50% of entry-level appointments to be from qualified minority applicants. The government argued that Firefighters Local Union No. 1784 v. Stotts mandated an end to preferential hiring. Chief Judge Curtin denied the motion, citing the Second Circuit's decision in EEOC v. Local 638, which held that Stotts does not prohibit race-conscious relief in this context. The court emphasized that the Buffalo decree is temporary, applies only to qualified candidates, and does not involve the displacement of existing employees, distinguishing it from the Stotts case. The hiring goals will end when the City proves its selection procedures are valid.

Employment DiscriminationRacial DiscriminationAffirmative ActionHiring DecreeRemedial OrderTitle VIISeniority RightsJudicial ReviewConsent DecreePublic Employment
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 06241 [210 AD3d 765]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 09, 2022

Matter of City of Yonkers v. Police Benevolent Assn. of the City of Yonkers

The City of Yonkers appealed an order that confirmed an arbitration award in favor of the Police Benevolent Association of the City of Yonkers. The dispute stemmed from the City's unilateral reduction of police officer overtime hours, which violated an oral agreement to maintain a 60-hour overtime cap. The Supreme Court granted the respondent's motion to confirm the arbitration award, which directed the City to rescind the 2018 policy and restore the 2011 policy. The Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's order, concluding that the arbitration award did not violate strong public policy, was not irrational, and did not exceed the arbitrator's power, as it was based on a reasonable interpretation of the collective bargaining agreement.

Collective Bargaining AgreementArbitration AwardOvertime PolicyPublic Employment Relations BoardImproper Practice ChargeAppellate ReviewJudicial Review of ArbitrationVacaturConfirmation of AwardMunicipal Law
References
8
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 01018 [191 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 16, 2021

Matter of Tenants United Fighting for the Lower E. Side v. City of New York Dept. of City Planning

The Appellate Division reversed a lower court order that had annulled approvals by the New York City Planning Commission (CPC) for new building constructions. The Supreme Court had initially granted petitions from Tenants United Fighting for the Lower East Side and Lower East Side Organized Neighbors. The appellate court held that the Supreme Court should have deferred to the CPC's reasonable interpretation of the New York City Zoning Resolution (ZR). Specifically, the Appellate Division clarified that ZR § 78-043's requirement for findings as a condition precedent only applies to modifications granted by special permit or authorization, not to other types of modifications to large-scale residential developments. Consequently, the petitions were denied and the proceedings dismissed.

Zoning ResolutionLarge-Scale Residential DevelopmentCity Planning CommissionAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewJudicial DeferenceStatutory InterpretationArticle 78 ProceedingNYC ZoningUrban Planning
References
7
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 08897 [158 AD3d 30]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 21, 2017

De'L. A. v. City of New York

The case, De'L. A. v City of New York, concerns an infant foster child who suffered brain injury from abuse by an unapproved teenage caretaker. The child's biological and adoptive mothers sued the City of New York, foster mother Milcia Pineda, and Jewish Child Care Association (JCCA). The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the City and Pineda but denied JCCA's motion. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the denial of summary judgment to JCCA, finding that questions of fact remained regarding JCCA's negligence in placing the child and monitoring the foster home, and whether this negligence was a proximate cause of the injury, despite the intervening act of abuse. The court emphasized that JCCA's alleged violations of regulations and policies made the harm foreseeable.

Foster Care NegligenceChild Abuse LiabilityProximate CauseIntervening Act DoctrineSummary Judgment MotionAppellate ReviewAgency OversightChild Welfare RegulationsForeseeability of HarmBrain Injury Case
References
18
Case No. No. 36, No. 37
Regular Panel Decision
May 23, 2023

Bryan Scurry v. New York City Housing Authority, Estate of Tayshana Murphy v. New York City Housing Authority

This case involves two consolidated appeals concerning negligence claims against the New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) for injuries and deaths resulting from intruder attacks in public housing complexes with broken exterior door locks. In both cases, the victims (Ms. Crushshon and Ms. Murphy) were targeted by assailants who gained access through negligently maintained doors. NYCHA sought summary judgment, arguing that the targeted nature of the attacks severed the causal link between its negligence and the harm. The Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of summary judgment in Scurry and reversed the grant of summary judgment in Murphy, reiterating that proximate cause is generally a question of fact for the jury. The court emphasized that the risk of intruders harming residents through unsecured doors is precisely the risk that renders a landlord negligent, and that an assailant's intent does not automatically sever the causal chain.

NegligencePremises LiabilityProximate CauseSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewLandlord DutyForeseeabilityTargeted AttackSecurity MeasuresBroken Locks
References
11
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 00945 [213 AD3d 548]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 21, 2023

Matter of Clarke v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch.

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's dismissal of petitions challenging the New York City Department of Education's (DOE) COVID-19 vaccine mandate. Petitioners, employees placed on leave without pay for non-compliance, had sought to annul the DOE's determinations and vacate an arbitration award. The court found that the vaccine mandate was a valid qualification of employment, unrelated to job performance or misconduct, and therefore did not constitute disciplinary action. Furthermore, it ruled that the arbitrator's authority stemmed from the Civil Service Law, not the collective bargaining agreement or Education Law, and petitioners lacked standing to challenge the arbitration award. The court also determined that petitioners' due process rights were not violated, as they were offered opportunities for exemptions and accommodations.

COVID-19 vaccine mandateleave without payCPLR Article 75CPLR Article 78arbitration awardpublic policy violationdue process rightsemployment qualificationteacher disciplineCivil Service Law
References
16
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 04083
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 24, 2021

Matter of King v. Board of Educ. of the City Sch. Dist. of the City of N.Y.

This case involves Charmaine King and other charter school petitioners seeking to compel the Board of Education of the City School District of the City of New York to provide COVID-19 screening tests to charter school students and staff, mirroring services offered to public school students. The Supreme Court initially granted the petition broadly, directing respondents to administer tests to New York City-resident children attending petitioners' charter schools to the same extent as public schools, and also to staff. The Appellate Division, First Department, modified this judgment, affirming that Education Law § 912 mandates the provision of health screening tests, including COVID-19 tests, to resident children attending non-public schools on the same terms as public schools. However, the appellate court specifically limited the directive to New York City-resident children attending the petitioners' charter schools, excluding staff and non-party schools, as the statute only covers children, and otherwise affirmed the lower court's decision.

COVID-19 testingCharter schoolsPublic schoolsEducation Law § 912Health and Welfare ServicesEstablishment ClauseAppellate DivisionSchool districtsJudicial reviewMandate
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 21,388 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