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. 2022 NY Slip Op 07123 [211 AD3d 1298]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 15, 2022

Matter of Lambert v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

The case involves Joseph Lambert, a claimant seeking workers' compensation benefits for work-related repetitive use injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) initially awarded a schedule loss of use (SLU) for his right arm, left arm, and right leg, payable weekly. Subsequently, Lambert requested the remaining SLU award be paid in a lump sum, which the WCLJ and the Workers' Compensation Board affirmed. The employer, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, appealed this decision, arguing that a lump sum request must be made at the time of the initial award. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, ruling that Workers' Compensation Law §§ 15 (3) (u) and 25 (1) (b) do not impose time limitations on an injured employee's request for a lump sum payment of an SLU award.

Schedule Loss of UseLump Sum PaymentWorkers' Compensation BoardAppellate DivisionStatutory InterpretationPermanent Partial DisabilityClaimant RightsEmployer AppealLegislative IntentPayment Timing
References
8
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 01980, 525411
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 22, 2018

Matter of Portlette v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

Claimant Oneshiua Portlette, a bus operator, appealed a Workers' Compensation Board decision denying her claim for benefits. Initially, her employer, Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, paid benefits for injuries Portlette reported sustained in a bus accident. However, the employer later suspended payments and raised fraud concerns after video evidence contradicted Portlette's account of the incident and her injuries. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) and subsequently the Board found that Portlette failed to prove a causally-related injury and made material misrepresentations. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding no error in the Board's consideration of the employer's evidence despite a lack of timely notice of controversy, and upholding the Board's resolution of conflicting medical opinions which supported that no causally-related injury occurred.

Workers' CompensationCausationFraudVideo EvidenceMedical OpinionNotice of ControversyPreclusionAppellate ReviewBus OperatorInjury Claim
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Arbitration between Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority & Gholson

Willie Gholson, a bus operator for Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, sought no-fault benefits after being attacked by a passenger. The Authority moved to stay arbitration, arguing that the incident was not related to the "use or operation" of the bus as defined by the Insurance Law. Gholson contended his injury, resulting from refusing to open the door at a non-bus stop, was part of his operation. The court, acknowledging the Workers' Compensation Board's finding that the injuries were due to employment activity, ultimately ruled that the no-fault law was intended for motor vehicle accidents involving physical contact between vehicles or persons, not assaults within a vehicle. Therefore, the court granted the Authority's motion to permanently stay arbitration.

No-fault benefitsBus operatorPassenger assaultArbitration stayInsurance LawMotor vehicle accidentUse or operationWorkers' CompensationScope of employmentJudicial interpretation
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 03, 2009

Delaney v. City of New York

Plaintiff, an ironworker, sustained injuries while working on a bridge owned by defendant City when he was struck by an employer-operated pickup truck. The Supreme Court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing the plaintiff's claims under Labor Law §§ 200 and 241(6) and for common-law negligence. This decision was unanimously affirmed, finding that the owner could not be held liable as the injuries resulted from the contractor's methods, and the owner lacked supervisory control. The court also deemed the cited Industrial Code provisions inapplicable and rejected arguments based on inherently dangerous conditions or OSH Act violations.

Summary JudgmentLabor Law 200Labor Law 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceSupervisory ControlContractor LiabilityOwner LiabilityIndustrial CodeWorkplace SafetyBridge Construction
References
5
Case No. 01 Civ. 6600(RLC)
Regular Panel Decision

Internet Law Library, Inc. v. Southridge Capital Management, LLC

Internet Law Library, Inc. and Hunter M.A. Carr (Internet Law) moved to consolidate two separate legal actions and sought designation as the plaintiff in the combined litigation. Cootes Drive LLC and other entities (Cootes Drive) opposed Internet Law's plaintiff designation but did not object to consolidation itself. The first action, initiated by Internet Law in Texas, alleged securities law violations and fraud by Cootes Drive regarding a Stock Purchase Agreement. The second action, filed by Cootes Drive in New York, accused Internet Law of breaching the same agreement and committing fraud. The Texas court subsequently transferred Internet Law's action to New York for potential consolidation. The court, finding common legal and factual questions and minimal risks of confusion or prejudice, granted the consolidation. Additionally, the court designated Internet Law as the plaintiff and *sua sponte* consolidated a third related case, *Brewer, et al. v. Southridge Capital Management LLC, et al.*

Consolidation of actionsRule 42(a) F.R. Civ. P.Realignment of partiesCompulsory counterclaimForum shoppingFirst-to-file ruleStock Purchase AgreementSecurities fraudBreach of contractJudicial economy
References
27
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Mayes v. Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers

The case involves plaintiff George A. Mayes suing Local 106, International Union of Operating Engineers, and its officers for alleged discrimination in job referrals and denial of rights under the Labor-Management Reporting and Disclosure Act (LMRDA). The defendants counterclaimed, seeking expenses incurred from Mayes' "baseless charges" against union members James Tommaney and Dan Lewis, citing violations of the Union's constitution and state law tort and breach of contract claims. Mayes moved for summary judgment, arguing good faith in filing charges under LMRDA and lack of court jurisdiction over the counterclaims. The court found material factual disputes regarding Mayes' motives, asserting jurisdiction over the counterclaims under 29 U.S.C. § 185. It also determined that the tort and breach of contract claims were sufficiently pleaded, thereby denying Mayes' motion for summary judgment and allowing the counterclaims to proceed.

Labour LawUnion DisputeSummary JudgmentCounterclaimsLMRDAFree SpeechUnion ConstitutionJurisdictionTort ClaimsBreach of Contract
References
13
Case No. 2015 NY Slip Op 06564 [132 AD3d 149]
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 18, 2015

Matter of Phillips v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Tr. Operating Auth.

This case concerns the termination of bus driver Tony Aiken by the Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (Transit Authority) for sexual harassment. Aiken, also a union official, was on union-paid release time when the termination was imposed. His union challenged the discipline, arguing the collective bargaining agreement (CBA) protected employees on release time from disciplinary action. An arbitrator sided with the union, ordering Aiken's reinstatement. The Supreme Court confirmed this award. However, the Appellate Division reversed, ruling that the arbitrator's interpretation of the CBA and the resulting reinstatement violated a well-defined public policy against sexual harassment in the workplace. The court emphasized the employer's legal obligation under Title VII and New York Human Rights Laws to prevent and address sexual harassment, and concluded that upholding the award would impede the Transit Authority's ability to fulfill this duty and deter future misconduct.

Sexual harassmentEmployment terminationCollective Bargaining AgreementArbitration awardPublic policy exceptionReinstatementUnion-paid release timeWorkplace disciplineTitle VIINew York City Human Rights Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Palumbo v. Manhattan & Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority

Plaintiff Nicholas Palumbo, a bus operator, was suspended and terminated by his employer, Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority, for allegedly using racially offensive language. After an arbitration process upheld his pre-disciplinary suspension and subsequent termination, Palumbo filed a lawsuit against his employer and the Transport Workers Union. Both defendants filed motions to dismiss. The court, presided over by District Judge Robinson, found that the Authority is not a 'person' under § 1983 for the alleged due process violations and that the plaintiff failed to allege an official policy or custom. Consequently, the federal claims against the Authority failed. With only state law claims remaining, the court declined supplemental jurisdiction and dismissed the case without prejudice, remanding the state law claims to state court.

Racial MisconductBus OperatorWrongful TerminationDue ProcessSupplemental JurisdictionMotion to DismissDuty of Fair RepresentationSection 1983 ClaimArbitration AwardEmployment Law
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 29, 2014

New York State Assn. for Affordable Hous. v. Council of the City of N.Y.

Justice Saxe dissents from the majority's decision to affirm the constitutionality of Local Law No. 44 (2012) of the City of New York. This local law, enacted by the City Council, aims to control and restrict the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development (HPD) in its efforts to create affordable housing. Saxe argues that Local Law 44 improperly contravenes state legislature's statutory delegations of responsibility to HPD, restricting the agency's authority. The local law adds reporting requirements for HPD and developers, but also directs that certain contractors be deemed ineligible for prequalified lists if they fail to provide wage information or have a history of construction conditions. The dissent contends that Local Law 44 interferes with and frustrates the operation of state laws by imposing additional terms and conditions on HPD's supervisory role over affordable housing construction, thereby impeding HPD's discretion and flexibility. While not agreeing with the plaintiffs' due process and equal protection arguments, Saxe aligns with the City and HPD's conflict preemption argument, asserting that the local law is invalid.

Affordable HousingLocal Law PreemptionState Statutory AuthorityNew York City CharterHousing Preservation and Development (HPD)City Council LegislationConflict PreemptionMunicipal Home RuleContractor EligibilityWage Reporting Requirements
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Noah v. IBC Acquisition Corp.

Plaintiff, injured while cleaning a waterslide at an amusement park, initiated an action claiming violations of Labor Law §§ 200, 240 (1), and 241 (6), alongside common-law negligence. The Supreme Court denied the defendants' motion for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint. On appeal, the order was modified to dismiss the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims, as these statutes were deemed inapplicable to routine maintenance outside of a construction or renovation context. However, the appellate court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims, citing unresolved factual disputes regarding the ownership, supervision, and operation of the amusement park at the time of the injury. The court noted that no stipulation to dismiss against various defendants was found in the record, despite earlier indications from plaintiff's counsel.

Amusement ParkSlip and FallRoutine MaintenanceLabor Law § 200Labor Law § 240(1)Labor Law § 241(6)Common-Law NegligenceSummary JudgmentAppellate CourtPremises Liability
References
4
Showing 1-10 of 14,939 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