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

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. 08 Civ. 7837(PAC)
Regular Panel Decision

Metropolitan Taxicab Board of Trade v. City of New York

This case involves a dispute between New York City taxicab fleet owners and the City’s Taxicab & Limousine Commission (TLC) over new regulations. The regulations incentivize the purchase of hybrid taxicabs by increasing lease rates for hybrids and substantially reducing rates for non-hybrid vehicles. Plaintiffs challenged these new rules, arguing they create a de facto mandate to purchase hybrid vehicles, which is preempted by federal law (Energy Policy and Conservation Act - EPCA and Clean Air Act - CAA). The Court found that the new Lease Cap Rules indeed constitute an effective mandate to switch to hybrid vehicles, making them "related to" fuel economy standards and emissions control. Consequently, the Court granted the Plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction, ruling that the City's new regulations are preempted by both the EPCA and the CAA.

Taxicab RegulationsHybrid VehiclesFederal PreemptionEnergy Policy and Conservation Act (EPCA)Clean Air Act (CAA)Preliminary InjunctionEconomic MandateLease Rate ControlFuel Efficiency StandardsEmissions Control
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Wellington v. City of New York

This case involves three New York City police officers who, despite receiving full salaries under unlimited sick leave after work-related vehicle accidents in 1974, sued the City of New York for basic economic loss under the no-fault law. The central issue was whether sick leave benefits constituted an offset against no-fault benefits before a 1977 amendment. The court denied the City's cross-motion for summary judgment and granted the plaintiffs' motion, ruling that prior to the 1977 amendment, no-fault law did not expressly provide for sick leave benefits as an offset, thus allowing for what the Legislature later clarified as a 'double recovery.'

No-fault insurancesick leave benefitsdouble recoverywage continuation plansoffsetsfirst-party benefitseconomic losspolice officersstatutory interpretationsummary judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration Between City of Oswego & Oswego City Firefighters Ass'n, Local 2707

The City of Oswego appealed an order denying its petition to vacate an arbitration award and confirming the award in favor of the Oswego City Firefighters Association, Local 2707. The City contended that the arbitrator exceeded his authority by contravening the Retirement and Social Security Law and Civil Service Law regarding firefighter retirement contributions. The central issue was whether an expired collective bargaining agreement remained in effect under the Triborough doctrine, thereby obligating the City to pay firefighter contributions to the New York State Police and Fireman’s Retirement System for newly hired employees. The court affirmed the lower court's decision, concluding that the arbitration award was not contrary to statutes or public policy. It held that the Triborough doctrine maintained the terms of the expired agreement until a new one was negotiated, thus the Section 8 exception applied to the firefighters.

ArbitrationPublic EmployerCollective Bargaining AgreementRetirement BenefitsCivil Service LawRetirement and Social Security LawTriborough DoctrineGrievanceStatutory InterpretationAppellate Review
References
18
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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 05, 1989

Assante v. City of New York

Salvatore Assante, a New York City Department of Sanitation worker, sustained injuries in 1982 when his vehicle struck an obstruction. The plaintiffs initially alleged vehicle safety device failure and the City of New York's failure to maintain a safe road. During the 1988 trial, plaintiffs attempted to introduce a new "second collision" theory, claiming injuries were exacerbated by the absence of a seat belt, and moved to amend their pleadings. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied this motion due to prejudicial delay. The appellate court affirmed the judgment, finding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the amendment, as the defendants would have been prejudiced by the late introduction of a new factual theory.

Personal InjuryJury VerdictPleadings AmendmentNew Theory of LiabilityPrejudiceDiscretion of CourtAppellate ReviewCPLR 3025(c)Safety DevicesSeat Belt
References
5
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 03506 [127 AD3d 1145]
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 29, 2015

Matias v. City of New York

The plaintiff, a correction officer, sustained an initial injury at Rikers Island. While being transported in an ambulance, he was involved in a motor vehicle accident, causing further injuries. He sought workers' compensation for the initial injuries and separately sued the City of New York, the New York City Fire Department, and the ambulance driver for damages from the motor vehicle accident. The defendants moved to amend their answer to assert an affirmative defense based on the Workers' Compensation Law's exclusivity provision and for summary judgment. The Appellate Division, Second Department, affirmed the Supreme Court's denial of this motion, holding that an employee can pursue a separate action for injuries sustained from subsequent negligent conduct outside the scope of employment, even if initial injuries arose from employment and were covered by workers' compensation.

personal injuryworkers' compensation lawexclusivity provisionmotor vehicle accidentcorrection officersubsequent injuryscope of employmentaffirmative defensesummary judgmentambulance accident
References
3
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00479
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

Buenano v. City of New York

Blanca Buenano, injured as a passenger in a City vehicle driven by a City employee while performing community service, sued the City of New York and the Department of Parks and Recreation. Defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing workers' compensation benefits were plaintiff's exclusive remedy, a claim previously awarded by the Workers' Compensation Board. The Supreme Court denied the motion as premature, but the Appellate Division reversed this decision. The Appellate Division granted summary judgment to the defendants, finding the motion improperly denied and that workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. Additionally, summary judgment was granted to defendant Quevarda Cummings, the City employee, as the Workers' Compensation Law bars tort actions against co-employees.

Workers' CompensationExclusive RemedySummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCo-employee LiabilityCommunity ServiceCity Vehicle AccidentNew York CityParks DepartmentTort Claims
References
7
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
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Deleon v. New York City Sanitation Department

DeGrasse, J., dissents from the majority's premise, arguing that the reckless disregard standard of care set forth under Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1103 (b) applies to the case. The case involves a 2010 collision between a plaintiff's vehicle and a mechanical street sweeper operated by defendant Robert P. Falcaro, a city sanitation worker. The dissent asserts that Rules of the City of New York (34 RCNY) § 4-02 (d) (1) (iv) incorporated this standard for highway workers, a category Falcaro falls under. It refutes the majority's interpretation of 34 RCNY § 4-02 (d) (1) (iii), stating it provides no standard of care and thus does not contradict the application of the reckless disregard standard. The dissenting judge concludes that summary judgment was properly granted by the court below, as there was no evidence of Falcaro's intentional conduct committed in disregard of a known or obvious risk of highly probable harm, and would affirm the denial of plaintiff’s motion for summary judgment and the granting of defendants’ cross motion.

Reckless disregardVehicle and Traffic LawStreet sweeperHighway workerSummary judgmentMunicipal lawNew York City RulesStandard of careDissentCollision
References
6
Showing 1-10 of 3,917 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