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. 2023 NY Slip Op 01392 [214 AD3d 1332]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2023

Matter of Niagara Falls Captains & Lieutenants Assn. (City of Niagara Falls)

The Niagara Falls Captains and Lieutenants Association, as petitioner, appealed an order from the Supreme Court, Niagara County, which denied their petition to vacate an arbitration award. The arbitration award had previously denied the association's grievances against the City of Niagara Falls. The petitioner contended that the award should be vacated because it failed to meet the standards of finality and definiteness required by CPLR 7511 (b) (1) (iii). The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, affirmed the lower court's order, emphasizing the extremely limited judicial review of arbitration awards. The court found that the award sufficiently defined the parties' rights and obligations regarding the alleged violation of their collective bargaining agreement or past practice concerning the filling of six vacancies by the City. Ultimately, the court concluded that the award was definite and final, resolving the submitted controversy without creating new ambiguities.

Arbitration AwardVacate AwardFinalityDefinitenessCPLR 7511Collective Bargaining AgreementGrievancesJudicial ReviewAppellate DivisionPublic Sector Employment
References
9
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00459 [124 AD3d 473]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Matter of Port Auth. of N.Y. & N.J. v. Port Auth. Police Lieutenants Benevolent Assn.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey appealed a Supreme Court judgment that confirmed an arbitration award. The arbitrator found that the Port Authority violated a collective bargaining agreement by discontinuing free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police lieutenants. The Appellate Division, First Department, unanimously affirmed the Supreme Court's judgment. The court determined that the arbitrator's ruling was not

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesPolice LieutenantsAppellate ReviewJudicial ReviewLabor DisputeContract InterpretationUnanimously Affirmed
References
2
Case No. ADJ8004482
Regular
Sep 04, 2012

SETH PATRICK LANTZ (PATRICK LANTZ), Deceased; SHANNON M. LANTZ, Individually And As Guardian Ad Litem For ZANE A. LANTZ; KODY R. LANTZ; HALEY M. FITZJERRELL, And TYLER P. LANTZ, Minors vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, CALIFORNIA DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS PLEASANT VALLEY STATE PRISON, Legally Uninsured, Adjusted By STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board (WCAB) granted reconsideration to determine if Lieutenant Seth Patrick Lantz's fatal car accident during his commute arose from his employment. The WCAB found the accident did not arise out of or in the course of employment, reversing the prior decision. The Board determined the "going and coming rule" applied, as Lieutenant Lantz's extended shift and acting as watch commander did not constitute a special mission exception. Therefore, the death benefit claim was denied.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardDeath BenefitsGoing and Coming RuleSpecial Mission ExceptionCommuteIndustrial InjuryCorrectional OfficerWatch CommanderReconsiderationFindings of Fact
References
0
Case No. 06 Civ. 1558
Regular Panel Decision

Caceres v. Port Authority of New York & New Jersey

This case involves Joseph Caceres, who was falsely arrested by Port Authority police officers due to mistaken identity stemming from a clerical error in the NYSID database. Caceres, seeking to retrieve his towed car, was mistakenly identified as the subject of an outstanding felony narcotics warrant for 'John Doe,' despite discrepancies in physical description and Caceres's protests. He was held for two days before being released after further investigation, prompted by his father, revealed the actual subject was Lacey Johnson. A jury found Lieutenant Sangiorgi liable for false arrest under federal and state law, and the Port Authority vicariously liable under state law, awarding $10,000 in damages. The Court denied the defendants' joint motion for judgment as a matter of law or a new trial but granted Lieutenant Sangiorgi's separate motion for qualified immunity, leaving only the Port Authority vicariously liable.

False ArrestMistaken IdentityQualified ImmunitySection 1983 ClaimNew Jersey State LawProbable CausePolice MisconductNYSID Database ErrorCivil Rights ViolationPost-Trial Motions
References
68
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 00461 [124 AD3d 475]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 15, 2015

Port Authority of New York & New Jersey v. Port Authority Police Lieutenants Benevolent Ass'n

The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed a judgment confirming an arbitration award that found the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey violated a collective bargaining agreement by ending free E-Z Pass privileges for retired police sergeants. The court ruled that the arbitrator did not exceed his authority and that his interpretation, which vested retired members with a lifetime interest in these privileges, was not irrational. The decision also clarified that a contractual phrase regarding 'applicable law' pertains to the award's binding nature, not a ground for vacating the award due to a mistake of law.

Arbitration AwardCollective Bargaining AgreementE-Z Pass PrivilegesRetired EmployeesArbitrator's AuthorityAppellate ReviewContractual InterpretationLifetime BenefitsJudicial ReviewPublic Authority
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

De Los Santos v. City of New York

Plaintiff Alsacia De Los Santos sued the City of New York, NYPD, and Lt. Christopher Pasquerelli, alleging retaliation under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and state/municipal human rights laws. De Los Santos claimed Lt. Pasquerelli retaliated against her for reporting a sexual encounter between two police officers, Lt. Kevin Leddy and Officer Tara Eckert. The defendants moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff failed to state a First Amendment claim, could not show municipal liability, and failed to state a claim under human rights laws. The Court granted the defendants' motion, finding that the plaintiff's conversations about the sexual encounter did not constitute speech on a matter of public concern for First Amendment purposes. Additionally, the court found she could not reasonably believe she was reporting sexual harassment under human rights laws.

RetaliationFirst AmendmentPublic ConcernSummary JudgmentSexual HarassmentNYPDPolice MisconductEmployment DiscriminationMunicipal LiabilityQualified Immunity
References
33
Case No. 02-CV-6666L
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 29, 2008

Brown v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF CORREC. SERVICES

Plaintiff, Curtis Brown, a Correction Officer, sued his employer, the New York State Department of Correctional Services (DOCS), and several individuals for racial discrimination and retaliation under Title VII, Sections 1981, 1983, and the New York Human Rights Law. Brown alleged a hostile work environment due to continuous harassment, verbal abuse, and physical violence by white coworkers at Elmira Correctional Facility since 2001, along with retaliatory discipline. Defendants sought summary judgment. The court dismissed claims against individual defendants under Title VII, all claims against Elmira, the State Comptroller, Civil Service, and all constructive discharge claims due to Eleventh Amendment immunity or other legal deficiencies. However, the court denied summary judgment on Brown's Title VII hostile work environment and retaliation claims against DOCS, finding sufficient evidence of fact disputes for these claims to proceed to trial.

Racial DiscriminationHostile Work EnvironmentRetaliationEmployment LawTitle VIICivil Rights ActSection 1981Section 1983Human Rights LawSummary Judgment Motion
References
83
Case No. ADJ9009619
Regular
Aug 16, 2018

RICHARD WILSON vs. DEPARTMENT OF STATE HOSPITALS COALINGA Legally Uninsured, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The applicant, a police lieutenant, claimed a psyche injury due to being forced to work with his ex-fiancée's paramour. The WCJ initially found no industrial injury, attributing the issues to personal disputes. Medical evaluators and the applicant's testimony confirm the primary cause stemmed from his fiancée leaving him for a coworker. The Appeals Board affirmed the WCJ's decision, ruling that the employment merely provided a "stage" for a personal matter, not an active or positive role in the claimed injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardIndustrial injury to psycheGood faith personnel actionsPetition for ReconsiderationCumulative injuryAgreed Medical EvaluatorQualified Medical EvaluatorPersonal dispute with coworkerEmployment dutiesActive or positive role
References
4
Case No. SAC 316687
Regular
Feb 28, 2008

STEVE OLSON vs. DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a correctional lieutenant claiming cumulative industrial injury to his heart, hypertension, diabetes, and GERD. The original decision apportioned 80% of his permanent disability to non-industrial causes, but the Appeals Board rescinded this. The Board determined that Labor Code section 4663(e) exempts safety officers like the applicant from apportionment for presumed injuries, and the calculation of permanent disability indemnity must now follow the *Brodie/Welcher* standard.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardSAC 316687Steve OlsonDepartment of CorrectionsState Compensation Insurance FundOpinion and Decision After Reconsiderationcorrectional lieutenantcumulative industrial injuryhearthypertension
References
2
Case No. ADJ9172692
Regular
Feb 25, 2016

TIMOTHY FRYE vs. STATE OF CALIFORNIA, DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS AND REHABILITATION, Legally Uninsured; STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

This case involves a correctional lieutenant who claimed a cumulative industrial injury to his heart, knees, hip, cardiovascular system, and hypertension. The defendant sought reconsideration, arguing for separate injury periods for orthopedic and internal conditions. The Board denied the petition, upholding the finding of a single cumulative trauma period ending on the applicant's last day of employment. The Board found no evidence that the applicant knew his disability was work-related prior to consulting an attorney, thus establishing the date of injury as post-employment.

Cumulative traumaDate of injuryIndustrial injuryCardiovascular systemHypertensionOrthopedic claimInternal claimPetition for reconsiderationFindings of Fact and AwardsWCJ
References
0
Showing 1-10 of 28 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