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

24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. v. Long Island Rail Road

The case involves 24 Hour Fuel Oil Corp. suing Long Island Rail Road (LIRR) and Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) after LIRR canceled its lowest bid for a diesel fuel supply contract and re-bid the contract. 24 Hour sought summary judgment and a permanent injunction, arguing LIRR violated federal regulations (49 C.F.R. § 18.36) by not awarding to the lowest bidder. Defendants cross-moved, claiming lack of federal jurisdiction. The court ruled that 24 Hour did not possess a private right of action under the cited federal regulation. Consequently, the complaint was dismissed for failure to state a claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims.

Summary JudgmentFederal Question JurisdictionPrivate Right of ActionContract BiddingProcurement RegulationsFederal Transit Administration (FTA)State Law ClaimsSupplemental JurisdictionGovernment ContractsBid Protest
References
23
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

United States v. Harloff

The Chief Judge dismisses Counts 18 and 19 of the Indictment, which alleged violations of 18 U.S.C. § 666. The charges claimed defendants falsified payroll records by stating they worked 40-hour weeks but worked fewer, constituting embezzlement. The judge determined that 18 U.S.C. § 666(c) exempts "bona fide salary, wages" and that accepting wages for more hours than worked does not constitute a federal crime under this section. The court distinguished this from "ghost employees" and found no legislative intent to criminalize early departure from work. Citing rules of lenity, the court dismissed the counts on its own motion.

EmbezzlementPayroll FraudFederal Criminal Law18 U.S.C. § 666Bona Fide WagesLegislative IntentStatutory InterpretationRule of LenityGhost EmployeesDismissal of Indictment
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Young

An attorney representing an indigent defendant in Monroe County filed an application seeking reimbursement for legal services at a rate of $200 per hour, mirroring the rate charged by the Special Prosecutor, rather than the statutory rates under County Law § 722-b. The attorney argued that the significant disparity in hourly compensation violated the defendant's right to equal protection and that his qualifications justified the requested rate. The New York State Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers supported the application as amicus curiae, while Monroe County opposed it, arguing the request was untimely and lacked extraordinary circumstances. Presiding Judge Donald J. Mark, J., acknowledged the court's authority to grant compensation in excess of statutory limits under extraordinary circumstances but ultimately denied the application. The denial was based on the court's reasoning that an analogous argument was previously rejected, that linking assigned counsel rates to prosecutor rates would render County Law § 722-b ineffective, and that extraordinary circumstances could not be demonstrated prior to the conclusion of the criminal action. The court, however, reserved the right to reconsider an increased hourly fee upon the case's termination if such circumstances are then proven.

Assigned CounselLegal Aid CompensationCounty Law Section 722-bHourly Rate DisputeSpecial Prosecutor FeesIndigent RightsJudicial DiscretionExtraordinary CircumstancesMonroe County LawEqual Protection Challenge
References
16
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Patel v. Tal Transportation, Inc.

Claimant, a driver for Tal Transportation, Inc. (TTI), was injured in an automobile accident in April 1996 and filed for workers' compensation benefits. A Workers’ Compensation Law Judge (WCLJ) found claimant to be an employee of TTI and established the case for accident, notice, and causal relationship for various injuries. The Workers’ Compensation Board affirmed the WCLJ's decision on October 18, 2000, confirming the employment relationship. Subsequently, based on a stipulation with the Uninsured Employer’s Fund, the WCLJ awarded claimant a 17½% schedule loss of use of the left arm, which the Board affirmed on December 18, 2001. TTI appealed this latter decision, attempting to challenge the employment relationship, but the court found that TTI's appeal was untimely regarding the employment finding. Since TTI did not challenge the schedule loss of use award itself, the Board's December 18, 2001 decision was affirmed.

Workers' CompensationSchedule Loss of UseEmployment RelationshipTimeliness of AppealAutomobile AccidentUninsured Employer's FundDriverInjuryNew York Workers' Compensation BoardAdministrative Law
References
1
Case No. 2019 NY Slip Op 08791 [178 AD3d 473]
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 10, 2019

Garcia v. SMJ 210 W. 18 LLC

Plaintiff Juan Garcia was injured when struck by a falling piece of DensGlass while working on a temporary exterior platform on the 21st floor of a building under construction. He was dismantling a bridge linked to an exterior hoist elevator when the material, matching a missing piece from the floor above, struck him. The court reversed the lower court's decision, granting plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, finding that the exterior facade was incomplete and workers were performing patch work above. Additionally, the court denied the defendants-respondents' cross motions for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 241 (6) claim, citing a triable issue of fact regarding the necessity of overhead protection in an area exposed to falling objects.

Construction AccidentFalling ObjectLabor Law 240(1)Labor Law 241(6)Summary JudgmentAppellate ReviewPersonal InjuryWorker SafetyOverhead ProtectionBuilding Under Construction
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 01171 [235 AD3d 591]
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 2025

Lopez v. 18-20 Park 84 Corp.

Plaintiff Felipe A. Lazaro Lopez, a painter employed by Dowd Interiors, Inc., suffered a fall from a ladder during renovation work. Lopez filed a personal injury lawsuit against 18-20 Park 84 Corp., the building owner, under Labor Law § 240 (1). The Supreme Court of New York County initially granted Lopez's motion for partial summary judgment on liability against 18-20 Park 84 Corp. and denied Dowd's motion to dismiss third-party claims for common-law indemnification and contribution. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the grant of partial summary judgment to Lopez. However, it modified the lower court's order by granting Dowd's motion for summary judgment, thereby dismissing the common-law indemnification and contribution claims. This modification was based on the finding that Lopez did not suffer a 'grave injury' as defined by Workers' Compensation Law § 11.

Labor LawSummary JudgmentAppellate DivisionPersonal InjuryConstruction AccidentLadder FallIndemnificationContributionGrave InjuryWorkers' Compensation Law
References
10
Case No. 2020-09171, N-349-18, N-8740-18, N-8741-18, N-8742-18, N-8743-18, N-8744-18, N-8745-18, N-8746-18, N-8747-18, N-8748-18, N-8749-18, N-8750-18, N-8751-18, N-8752-18, N-8753-18, N-345-19
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 30, 2022

Matter of Amaris A. A. (Jasmine R.)

This case details an appeal by Jasmine R., the mother, from a Family Court order in Suffolk County. The Family Court had found that the mother abused her child, Amaris A. A., and derivatively neglected her seven other children, based on evidence of abusive head trauma and multiple healing rib fractures. The Suffolk County Department of Social Services presented expert testimony from a pediatric radiologist confirming non-accidental trauma. The mother failed to rebut the prima facie case of child abuse. The Appellate Division affirmed the Family Court's findings, concluding that DSS established abuse and derivative neglect by a preponderance of the evidence.

Family LawChild AbuseChild NeglectDerivative NeglectAbusive Head TraumaRib FracturesFamily Court Act Article 10Preponderance of EvidencePrima Facie CaseAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. ADJ4094302 (AHM 0101287)
Regular
Jun 08, 2010

ROBERT STAMPS vs. KENNY-SHEA-TRAYLOR-FRONTIER-KEMPER JOINT VENTURE; AIG SERVICES, INC.

This case concerns a supplemental attorney's fee award for the applicant's attorney, John M. Urban, under Labor Code §5801. The Court of Appeal denied the defendant's petition for writ of review, finding no reasonable basis and remanding for attorney's fees. Applicant's attorney requested $5400.00 for 18 hours of work at $300 per hour, which the Board found reasonable. The Board awarded the requested amount to John M. Urban against the defendant joint venture.

ADJ4094302SUPPLEMENTAL ATTORNEY'S FEESLABOR CODE §5801Court of Appeal Fourth Appellate Districtpetition for writ of reviewno reasonable basisremandattorney's feesapplicant's attorneyJohn M. Urban
References
1
Case No. 2019-03475; Docket Nos. B-762-18, B-763-18, B-764-18, B-765-18
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 02, 2020

Matter of Margaret K.K. (Alicia A.)

Alicia A. (mother) appealed the Family Court of Rockland County's order terminating her parental rights to her four children due to mental illness. The Appellate Division dismissed the appeal concerning two children (William K. and Margaret K. K.) as academic because they had reached the age of majority. For the remaining children, the court affirmed the lower court's decision, finding clear and convincing evidence that the mother's mental illnesses (bipolar disorder, ADHD, and PTSD) rendered her unable to provide proper care. The court also determined that the mother received effective assistance of counsel, despite counsel not attending a court-ordered psychological examination, given counsel's detailed cross-examination of the evaluator and securing an independent psychiatric evaluation. The decision upheld the termination of parental rights for the children still under the court's jurisdiction.

Parental Rights TerminationMental Illness GroundIneffective Assistance of CounselAppellate ReviewSocial Services Law § 384-bFamily Court ActChild NeglectBipolar DisorderPost-Traumatic Stress DisorderAttention Deficit-Hyperactivity Disorder
References
17
Case No. FRE 0131884
Regular
May 28, 2008

CARMEN E. SOLLARS vs. TARGET STORES

The Court of Appeal remanded this case for additional attorney's fees for applicant's counsel after the defendant's petition for writ of review was denied. While applicant's counsel requested $8,640 based on 28.8 hours at $300/hour, the Appeals Board reduced the award. The Board found the requested rate and hours excessive, awarding $2,500 based on 10 hours at $250/hour, considering the result, work performed, and difficulty.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Writ of ReviewAttorney's FeesLabor Code § 5801Court of AppealRemittiturSupplemental AwardAppellate WorkHourly RateReasonable Fees
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 1,110 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