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

Bentley v. Peace and Quiet Realty 2 LLC

Daphne Bentley, a 66-year-old disabled woman, sued her landlord for refusing to allow her to move to a vacant lower-level, rent-stabilized apartment at her current rent, alleging a violation of the Fair Housing Act. Bentley, who suffers from cancer and difficulty climbing stairs, sought this accommodation to improve her ability to leave her top-floor apartment. The defendants moved to dismiss, arguing the requested accommodation was not contemplated by the FHAA, contending Bentley sought to accommodate her poverty, not her disability, and that offering the apartment at its maximum legal rent fulfilled their obligations. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss, ruling that Bentley's request to transfer units within the building is a cognizable accommodation under the FHAA and that a disability-neutral policy does not automatically preclude an inquiry into the reasonableness of the proposed accommodation. The court scheduled a hearing to determine the reasonableness and potential burden of the requested accommodation.

Disability AccommodationFair Housing ActRent Stabilization LawReasonable AccommodationHousing DiscriminationTenant RightsUndue BurdenMotion to DismissFederal JurisdictionEqual Opportunity
References
19
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 07501
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 2017

Graham v. New York State Office of Mental Health

Richard Graham, a nurse with Tourette's syndrome and spinal stenosis, sued the New York State Office of Mental Health and others for disability discrimination and retaliation after his probationary employment was terminated. Graham alleged refusal of reasonable accommodation for his disabilities during a job transfer and retaliation for requesting accommodations. The defendants argued that Graham failed to cooperate in the interactive accommodation process and was legitimately terminated for falsifying his employment application regarding prior state employment. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment to the defendants, dismissing the complaint. The Appellate Division affirmed this decision, concluding that there was no refusal of reasonable accommodation and that the termination was based on legitimate, non-discriminatory grounds.

Disability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationRetaliation ClaimSummary JudgmentEmployment LawProbationary EmploymentFalsification of Employment ApplicationWorkers' Compensation LeaveInteractive ProcessHuman Rights Law
References
35
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Miller v. McHugh

Marytherese Miller, a legal technician at West Point, sued her employer, the Secretary of the Army, alleging employment discrimination, failure to accommodate, retaliation, hostile work environment, and Privacy Act violations. Miller, who underwent two knee surgeries, requested worksite and parking accommodations, and advanced leave, which she claims were denied or inadequately provided. She also alleged a job reclassification, lowered performance evaluations, and inappropriate comments from co-workers were retaliatory or created a hostile environment. The Government moved for summary judgment, arguing Miller was not disabled under the ADA during the relevant periods, her accommodations were reasonable, and her other claims lacked prima facie evidence or causal connection. The court found Miller did not provide sufficient medical evidence of disability prior to her second surgery and that reasonable accommodations were offered afterward. It also determined that alleged retaliatory actions predated protected activities or lacked causation, and that hostile work environment claims were not severe or pervasive enough. Finally, Miller's Privacy Act claim lacked proof of record disclosure or adverse effect. Consequently, the Government's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed.

Employment DiscriminationDisability DiscriminationFailure to AccommodateRetaliationHostile Work EnvironmentPrivacy ActSummary JudgmentRehabilitation ActAmericans with Disabilities ActTitle VII
References
85
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wisneski v. Nassau Health Care Corp.

A registered nurse, suffering from a knee condition, sued her employers for alleged failure to accommodate her disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and New York state law. The plaintiff requested a position requiring less standing and an indefinite leave of absence as accommodations. The Court found no evidence of a suitable vacant position and determined that an indefinite leave of absence did not constitute a reasonable accommodation. Consequently, the Court granted the defendants' motion for summary judgment regarding the ADA claims and declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Disability DiscriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActReasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentEmployment LawFederal CourtMedical LeaveIndefinite LeaveEEOC ExhaustionContinuing Violation
References
22
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02003 [159 AD3d 558]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

D'Amico v. City of New York

Plaintiff, a sanitation worker, suffered a hand injury and was terminated after requesting light duty based on doctors' recommendations. He filed claims for disability discrimination under the New York State and New York City Human Rights Laws, alleging failure to accommodate. The Supreme Court initially dismissed his amended verified complaint for failure to state a claim. On appeal, the Appellate Division modified the order, reinstating plaintiff's disability discrimination claims related to failure to accommodate, highlighting the absence of an interactive dialogue for reasonable accommodation. However, the court affirmed the dismissal of his retaliation claims, finding he failed to allege protected activity.

Disability discriminationHuman Rights LawFailure to accommodateRetaliation claimsSanitation workerLight duty accommodationInteractive dialogueAppellate DivisionNew York State Human Rights LawNew York City Human Rights Law
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Bucaro v. Morales

Professor Thomas Búcaro, a hearing-impaired tenured professor at the College of Staten Island (CSI), petitioned the court after his long-standing reasonable accommodation, including reduced classroom hours and CART services, was removed from his fall 2007 teaching schedule without his consent. Búcaro alleged retaliation and violations of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and Human Rights Laws. The court found that CSI's removal of the established accommodation violated the ADA. Consequently, the court ordered CSI to promptly collaborate with Professor Búcaro to establish a new reasonable accommodation for his teaching schedule, ensuring he avoids an excessive course load in the Spring 2008 semester.

Disability AccommodationAmericans with Disabilities ActRehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights LawRetaliationEmployment DiscriminationAcademic EmploymentReasonable AccommodationCollege of Staten IslandCity University of New York
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Spinella v. Town of Paris Zoning Board of Appeals

The respondents moved to dismiss the petition alleging petitioners failed to submit a proposed judgment within 60 days, deeming it abandoned. Petitioners' counsel, a qualified individual with a visual disability under the Americans With Disabilities Act, argued that his impairment constituted 'good cause' for the delay. He sought reasonable accommodation, citing past accommodations for the bar exam and law school, as well as an increased workload due to a lost secretary. The court found that the counsel's visual impairment indeed served as good cause for noncompliance with the established time limits. Consequently, the motion to dismiss was denied, and the proposed judgment was signed, recognizing the extension of time as a reasonable accommodation.

Americans with Disabilities ActADADisability AccommodationJudicial DiscretionProcedural RulesTime LimitsGood CauseVisual ImpairmentAttorney DisabilityCourt Procedure
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Liss v. Nassau County

Barry Liss filed claims against Nassau County and its departments, alleging disability discrimination under the ADA and NYSHRL. Liss sustained work-related injuries and was diagnosed with multiple sclerosis, requiring accommodations for working at heights and in hot temperatures. He contended that the defendants failed to provide reasonable accommodations, leading to further injuries. The court denied the defendants' motion to dismiss the ADA claims, finding them not time-barred and issues of fact regarding reasonable accommodation and qualification. However, state law claims for NYSHRL and intentional infliction of emotional distress, along with punitive damages, were dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to file a timely Notice of Claim and the non-recoverability of punitive damages against municipal defendants.

ADANYSHRLDisability DiscriminationReasonable AccommodationFailure to AccommodateEmployment LawStatute of LimitationsMotion to DismissNassau CountyMultiple Sclerosis
References
24
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Needle v. Alling & Cory, Inc.

Gerald Needle, a former employee of Ailing and Cory, Inc., sued for disability discrimination under the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The emotional distress claim was previously dismissed. Needle, who suffered from diabetes leading to toe amputations and permanent physical restrictions, argued that the defendant failed to provide reasonable accommodation for his warehouse associate position. The defendant moved for summary judgment, asserting Needle was not a qualified individual with a disability and no suitable accommodation or vacant position existed. The court granted summary judgment for the defendant on the ADA claim, finding Needle could not perform essential job functions and no reasonable accommodation was viable. The court also denied the defendant's counterclaim for COBRA benefits and dismissed it.

Disability discriminationADAEmployment lawSummary judgmentReasonable accommodationEssential job functionsCOBRA benefitsDismissal with prejudiceDiabetic complicationsAmputations
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Levy v. N.Y.S. Dep't of Envtl. Conservation

This case addresses a disability discrimination and retaliation lawsuit filed by Daniel Levy against the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation and several individuals. Levy, a Forester 1 with diabetes, hearing loss, and a learning disability, alleged his employer failed to provide reasonable accommodations and retaliated against him. The Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the claims were untimely, accommodations were met, or that their actions were for legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons. The Court granted the Defendants' motion, ruling that claims prior to June 4, 2013, were time-barred. Furthermore, the Court determined Levy failed to demonstrate he could perform essential job functions, particularly writing, even with requested accommodations, and found Defendants provided legitimate reasons for alleged retaliatory actions.

Disability DiscriminationRetaliationAmericans with Disabilities Act (ADA)Section 504 Rehabilitation ActNew York Human Rights Law (NYHRL)Reasonable AccommodationSummary JudgmentForester EmploymentDiabetesLearning Disability
References
50
Showing 1-10 of 197 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