Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The court ruled on a motion to strike the supplemental appendix and specific sections of the brief submitted by respondent David W. Howard. The motion was granted to the extent that the material in the brief referencing the supplemental appendix is deemed stricken. However, the motion to strike was otherwise denied.
Angie Lindsay, an employee of CVS Distribution Center, filed for an expedited hearing regarding a right knee injury sustained on October 29, 2015. The central legal issue was whether the injury arose primarily out of and in the course and scope of her employment and if she was entitled to medical and temporary disability benefits. The Court found that Ms. Lindsay's injury, occurring when she twisted in a narrow aisle to avoid a co-worker, was compensable as the narrow aisles created a peculiar hazard. The Court granted Ms. Lindsay's request for ongoing medical treatment, including surgery recommended by Dr. Paul Becker, as CVS did not provide a contrary medical opinion. However, the Court denied temporary disability benefits, concluding Ms. Lindsay had not provided sufficient evidence to establish her likelihood to prevail on that claim at a hearing on the merits, noting that no physician had taken her completely off work and she did not provide duration of restrictions or employment status.
Helga Ingvarsdottir sued Gaines, Gruner, Ponzini & Novick, LLP for legal malpractice, alleging failure to provide timely notice for an unpaid wages claim under Business Corporation Law § 630 (a). The Supreme Court denied the law firm's motion to dismiss the complaint. On reargument, the Supreme Court adhered to its original decision and granted the third-party defendant's motion to dismiss. The Appellate Division, Second Department, reversed, finding that the 180-day notice period under Business Corporation Law § 630 (a) had expired before the law firm was retained. The court also determined that statutory insanity or equitable tolling doctrines did not apply to the condition precedent. Consequently, the Appellate Division modified the order by granting the law firm's motion to dismiss the complaint.
This personal injury action concerns Vincent Zukowski, who allegedly slipped and fell on ice at a construction site, claiming common-law negligence and Labor Law violations. The defendants, AVR-Powell C. Development Corp. and Powell Cove Associates, LLC, along with third-party defendant A-One Landscape Management, Inc., appealed the denial of their summary judgment motions. The Appellate Division modified the Supreme Court's order by granting A-One's motion regarding contractual indemnification and failure to procure insurance, and dismissing Jaman Development, LLC's cross-claim for contribution against A-One. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for the defendants, citing triable issues of fact regarding their negligence and notice of the dangerous condition under Labor Law § 200 and 12 NYCRR 23-1.7 (d).
The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration and reversed a prior finding that the applicant was an employee, determining she was an independent contractor. Key factors supporting this decision included the applicant's specialized skills, license, provision of her own malpractice insurance, billing via invoice, and receipt of a 1099 tax form. Unlike employees, she did not receive benefits like sick leave or paid holidays, and controlled the means by which her work was accomplished, despite the employer providing supplies and equipment. Therefore, her claim for workers' compensation benefits was denied.
The petitioner, a physician, sought a recalculation of his retirement benefits, specifically challenging the Comptroller's decision to exclude compensation from 1996 to 1999. The Comptroller had determined that the petitioner was an independent contractor during this period, making his earnings ineligible for inclusion in his final average salary. The court reviewed this determination in a CPLR article 78 proceeding. Finding substantial evidence to support the Comptroller's findings, which included the county issuing 1099 tax forms, requiring specific contracts, and the absence of employee benefits, the court confirmed the determination and dismissed the petition.
Claimant appealed two Workers' Compensation Board decisions, arguing decedent was an employee, not an independent contractor. Decedent, a postmaster and chicken farmer, died while repairing equipment on his property while raising chickens for respondent Agway under contract. The Workers' Compensation Board found decedent to be an independent contractor, denying benefits. The court affirmed the Board's finding, noting that decedent owned the property and equipment, received 1099 tax forms, and reported income as farm income, which supported the independent contractor status. The court also found the Board's rescission and reversal of its prior decision was not arbitrary and capricious.
The claimant, an owner-operator of a truck and trailer, suffered multiple injuries in April 2006 after falling from a loaded flatbed trailer. He subsequently filed a workers' compensation claim, listing Consolidated Lumber Transportation, Inc. as his employer. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board determined that an employee-employer relationship existed. On appeal, the court found insufficient substantial evidence to support the Board's finding, noting that the claimant owned and maintained his equipment, paid his own expenses and insurance, was issued an IRS 1099 form, and had flexibility in choosing loads. The court reversed the Board's decision and remitted the matter for further proceedings consistent with its ruling.
This dissent addresses whether a truck driver, Frank Henry, is an employee of Orbit Messenger, Inc. or an independent contractor, which impacts Orbit's liability under respondeat superior. The dissenting judge argues against a rule that mandates a factual determination in every such case, which could burden small businesses. Based on the record, the judge agrees with the motion court's finding that Henry is an independent contractor. Key factors include Henry's ownership and maintenance of his truck, control over routing and timing, payment structure (57% of billings, 1099 form), and lack of payroll deductions or benefits. The dissent concludes there is no showing that Orbit reserved control over Henry, advocating for dismissal as to Orbit, citing Shapiro v Robinson as a guiding precedent.
The case involves a plaintiff seeking damages for personal injuries after being struck by a vehicle driven by Gustavo Aguero-Borges, who was associated with Big City New Rochelle, an auto parts dealer. Big City New Rochelle moved for summary judgment, contending that Aguero-Borges was an independent contractor, thus relieving the company of vicarious liability. The Supreme Court initially denied this motion. On appeal, the higher court reversed the Supreme Court's order, granting summary judgment to Big City New Rochelle. The appellate decision was based on evidence showing Aguero-Borges operated as an independent contractor, characterized by his flexible work schedule, lack of benefits, and tax reporting as a 1099 recipient.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.