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 05129 [241 AD3d 1680]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2025

Matter of Cabrera v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Joseph Cabrera, the claimant, established a workers' compensation claim for work-related injuries and was subsequently classified with a permanent partial disability. The self-insured employer, New York City Housing Authority, failed to make timely compensation payments, leading to the imposition of a late payment penalty under Workers' Compensation Law § 25 (1) (e). Claimant's counsel sought an award of counsel fees for their role in securing this penalty, but the application was denied by the Workers' Compensation Law Judge, a decision later affirmed by the Workers' Compensation Board. The denial was based on recent amendments to Workers' Compensation Law § 24, which do not provide for additional fees for procuring late payment penalties. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, citing consistency with prior rulings that underscore the lack of authority to award such counsel fees.

counsel feeslate payment penaltyWorkers' Compensation Lawpermanent partial disabilityadministrative appealstatutory interpretationattorney fees denialjudicial reviewappellate decisionWorkers' Compensation Board
References
4
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nickels v. New York City Housing Authority

The case concerns the legality of the New York City Housing Authority's (Housing Authority) vote to involuntarily transfer its police officers to the New York City Police Department (NYPD) under Civil Service Law § 70 (2). The petitioner, Timothy L. Nickels, representing Housing Police officers, sought to void this transfer and enjoin the Housing Authority, arguing it lacked legal authorization and would harm officers' contractual benefits, including pension and workers' compensation. The court examined whether the Housing Authority constitutes a 'civil division of the state' under Civil Service Law § 70 (2) and its legislative history, concluding that public authorities are excluded. It also determined that legislative action is required to protect employees' constitutionally guaranteed pension and seniority rights, which would be impaired by the proposed merger without such authorization. Consequently, the court granted the petition, permanently enjoining the involuntary transfers and the dissemination of officers' payroll information, and directing the return of any such documentation.

Civil Service LawPublic AuthoritiesPolice TransferPension RightsConstitutional LawLegislative IntentInter-agency MergerCivil Division of StatePublic Employee BenefitsInjunctive Relief
References
17
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

A.H.A. General Construction, Inc. v. New York City Housing Authority

A.H.A. General Contracting, Inc. (respondent) sued New York City Housing Authority (appellant) for damages related to extra work under two construction contracts. Respondent claimed that the Housing Authority's misconduct entitled it to recover despite its own noncompliance with contractual notice and reporting requirements for extra work. The court determined that these requirements were conditions precedent to suit, not exculpatory clauses. Finding no factual basis that the Housing Authority's alleged misconduct prevented respondent's compliance, the court concluded that the Housing Authority's motion for summary judgment should have been granted. The Appellate Division's order was reversed, and the Supreme Court's order granting summary judgment to the Housing Authority and dismissing the complaint was reinstated.

Construction ContractsExtra Work ClaimsNotice RequirementsReporting RequirementsConditions PrecedentSummary JudgmentBreach of ContractUnjust EnrichmentPublic Works ProjectsContractual Obligations
References
14
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 07391
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2018

Matter of Community Hous. Improvement Program v. Commissioner of Labor

The Appellate Division, Third Department, dismissed an appeal filed by the Community Housing Improvement Program against the Commissioner of Labor. The appeal sought to challenge a decision by the Industrial Board of Appeals regarding a minimum wage order for the building service industry. The court determined it lacked subject matter jurisdiction because the petitioner failed to properly file a notice of appeal with the court of original instance, which was the Industrial Board of Appeals, not the Appellate Division. Additionally, the petitioner failed to timely and correctly serve the notice of appeal on the respondent's counsel at the designated address. Consequently, due to the complete failure to comply with CPLR 5515, the appeal was dismissed.

JurisdictionAppeal ProcedureService of ProcessAppellate DivisionIndustrial Board of AppealsMinimum WageLabor LawCPLRNew York CourtsStatutory Interpretation
References
12
Case No. 2014 NY Slip Op 04883 [119 AD3d 494]
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 02, 2014

Ahmed v. New York City Housing Authority

The case concerns Riaz Ahmed's personal injury claim against the New York City Housing Authority. Ahmed initially filed a notice of claim alleging injuries from a sidewalk defect. The Housing Authority moved to dismiss due to an inadequate notice, prompting Ahmed to cross-move to amend the notice to reflect a ladder fall during work as a contractor and add Labor Law claims. The Supreme Court granted the amendment and denied dismissal. However, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the proposed amendments were substantive changes to facts and legal theories, not mere technical corrections, thereby prejudicing the Housing Authority's ability to investigate. The court also found the original notice of claim inadequate for failing to provide sufficient detail for prompt investigation, leading to the dismissal of the complaint against the Housing Authority.

Notice of ClaimAmendment of ClaimPersonal InjurySidewalk DefectLadder FallLabor Law ClaimsSubstantive ChangesTechnical MistakesPrejudiceSufficiency of Notice
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claudio v. New York City Housing Authority

Judge Silverman dissents, arguing that the plaintiff was an ad hoc employee of the New York City Housing Authority, despite being paid by the city's South Bronx Neighborhood Youth Corps. The plaintiff worked on the Housing Authority's premises under their supervision, and the city did not supervise his work. Consequently, the plaintiff should be barred from suing the Housing Authority under Workers’ Compensation Law § 11. The dissent concludes that a motion to dismiss on this ground should have been granted, or, in the alternative, the verdict was against the weight of the evidence, warranting a new trial or dismissal of the complaint.

ad hoc employmentspecial employeeWorkers' Compensation Lawdissenting opinionjudgment reversalnew trialmotion to dismissverdict weight of evidencesupervisory controlemployment status determination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

MATTER OF PETERS v. New York City Hous. Auth.

Petitioner Peters initiated an Article 78 proceeding challenging the New York City Housing Authority's resolution, enacted pursuant to the Gwinn Amendment, which mandated public housing tenants certify non-membership in organizations deemed subversive by the Attorney General. Peters contended the resolution violated federal constitutional rights and was arbitrary, seeking its annulment and an injunction against enforcement. After a lower court annulled the resolution and the Appellate Division reversed, the Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division's order and remitted the case to Special Term. The Court avoided ruling on constitutional questions, asserting they should not be decided prematurely, and identified two non-constitutional grounds for potential disposition. These grounds included determining if the Gwinn Amendment applied to the specific housing project and if the Authority exceeded its statutory powers by expanding the scope of proscribed organizations beyond those explicitly designated as 'subversive' by the Attorney General.

Gwinn AmendmentSubversive OrganizationsHousing AuthorityTenant RightsConstitutional LawDue ProcessExecutive Order 9835Loyalty Review BoardStatutory InterpretationRemand
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hilda B. v. New York City Housing Authority

Petitioners, Hilda B. and her infant, sought leave to file a late notice of claim against the New York City Housing Authority after Hilda B. was sexually assaulted in her apartment building, and her infant was dropped during the incident. The building reportedly lacked working locks, allowing the perpetrator entry. The incident was reported to management and Housing Police, and a social worker also informed the Housing Authority. Despite this, a formal notice of claim was filed approximately 2.5 months beyond the statutory 90-day period. The Supreme Court, Bronx County, initially denied the motion, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision, granting petitioners' motion based on evidence of Hilda B.'s psychological inability to seek timely legal advice and the respondent's actual notice of the incident, with no showing of prejudice.

sexual assaultlate notice of claimGeneral Municipal Lawpsychological distresshousing authority negligencestatutory notice periodactual noticeappellate reversalpersonal injurypremises liability
References
2
Case No. 11-cv-7679, 11-cv-8249
Regular Panel Decision

Tiro v. Public House Investments, LLC

This case consolidates two actions brought by "tipped/front of house" and "non-tipped/back of house" employees against several New York City restaurants and individuals for alleged violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law (NYLL). Plaintiffs moved for class certification of their state-law claims. District Judge Colleen McMahon granted the motion in part, certifying eight subclasses based on employment at specific restaurants (Public House, Butterfield, Wicker Park, Black Finn) within the two broader categories of tipped and non-tipped workers. The court appointed Fitapelli & Schaffer, LLP as class counsel but directed the parties to submit new joint proposed class notices. Defendants are also ordered to disclose employee information for the subclasses.

Class certificationWage disputeFLSANYLLLabor lawRestaurant industryCollective actionTipped employeesNon-tipped employeesEmployer liability
References
30
Showing 1-10 of 1,830 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