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. ADJ14871067
Regular
Feb 13, 2023

EDGAR GAMA vs. XTRACTOR DEPOT, LLC, 2020 LONG BEACH, LLC, THE HARTFORD, STATE COMPENSATION INSURANCE FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board denied the Petition for Reconsideration, upholding the judge's finding that the applicant was an employee of Xtractor Depot, LLC. The Board gave significant weight to the judge's credibility determination, finding no substantial evidence to warrant overturning it. The Board also noted the petitioner's improper attachment of exhibits to their petition. Ultimately, the applicant's credible testimony and unrebutted exhibits supported the original finding of industrial injury.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardPetition for Reconsideration DeniedWCJ Credibility DeterminationGarza v. Workmen's Comp. Appeals Bd.Ostensible AuthorityEmployee StatusXtractor Depot LLCAndrew YoonCannabis IndustryWarehouse Explosion
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 01, 2000

220 West 98 Realty, L.L.C. v. New York Province of the Society of Jesus

This appeal concerns whether the respondent, the New York Province of the Society of Jesus, is entitled to a rent-stabilized renewal lease for multiple apartments occupied by its members. The current landlord, 220 West 98 Realty, L.L.C., refused to renew the lease, citing a previous court decision (*Manocherian II*) which held that a corporate tenant requires a lease to specify individual occupants to prevent perpetual tenancies. However, the court found that a 1989 stipulation between the parties, which included a list of specific apartment occupants, satisfied the requirement of *Manocherian II*. Therefore, the Appellate Term's decision, which affirmed that the landlord was precluded from relitigating these issues for the existing occupants, was affirmed. The matter was remanded to determine which apartments are no longer occupied by the designated individuals.

Rent Stabilization LawCorporate TenantRenewal LeasePrimary ResidencePerpetual TenancyStipulationSummary Holdover ProceedingOccupant ListLandlord-TenantAppellate Decision
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Nicoletta v. Hartnett

Petitioner, a contractor operating as Nicoletta Building Contractors, entered into a contract with the Village of Seneca Falls in September 1985 for construction work. In August 1986, an investigation by the Department of Labor revealed that petitioner had underpaid seven employees, violating prevailing wage and supplement requirements under Labor Law § 220. After an administrative hearing, the Hearing Officer's recommendation of willful violation, a 10% interest assessment, and a $1,175 civil penalty was adopted by the respondent. Petitioner challenged this determination regarding three employees, but the court confirmed the respondent's findings, citing substantial evidence and upholding the willfulness of the violation and the imposed penalties. The petition was dismissed.

Underpayment of wagesPrevailing wageLabor Law violationsWillful violationCivil penaltyAdministrative hearingJudicial reviewArticle 78Employer liabilityEmployee rights
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 1992

Saitanis Enterprises, Inc. v. Hines

The petitioner initiated a proceeding pursuant to CPLR article 78 to challenge a determination by the New York State Department of Labor. The Department of Labor's determination, dated January 21, 1992, found that the petitioner failed to pay prevailing wages and supplements to its employees in violation of Labor Law § 220. The court confirmed the Department of Labor's determination, finding that the record supported the finding of underpayment and that the calculation of underpayment was supported by substantial evidence. The court also deemed the petitioner's argument regarding worker classification as untimely, noting that challenges to prevailing wage rate schedules must be made within four months of receipt. Consequently, the proceeding was dismissed on the merits, with costs.

prevailing wagesunderpaymentDepartment of Laborcredibility determinationsworker classificationtimeliness of challengeadministrative agencysubstantial evidencelabor law violationjudicial review
References
5
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 04079 [206 AD3d 1430]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 23, 2022

Matter of Blanch v. Delta Airlines

Portia Blanch established a workers' compensation claim in 2018 for a work-related head injury. In 2020, the employer's carrier raised questions about her labor market attachment, and Blanch sought to amend her claim to include postconcussion syndrome and posttraumatic headaches. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge denied the amendment and found Blanch voluntarily withdrew from the labor market as of July 7, 2018, leading to a finding of no compensable lost time. The Workers' Compensation Board affirmed this determination, prompting Blanch's initial appeal. This Court previously modified that decision, setting the labor market attachment date to July 13, 2020, and reversing the rescission of indemnity benefits for the period of July 7, 2018, to July 12, 2020. Blanch subsequently applied for reconsideration of the Board's December 2020 decision, which was denied. This current appeal, challenging the denial of reconsideration, is dismissed as moot because the relief sought by Blanch regarding the recission of benefits for the period in question has already been granted by this Court's prior modification.

Workers' CompensationLabor Market AttachmentPostconcussion SyndromeAppellate ReviewMootnessIndemnity BenefitsClaim AmendmentBoard ReviewReconsideration ApplicationWork-related Injury
References
2
Case No. ADJ11930888
Regular
Nov 13, 2020

ANTHONY RAYA vs. RAINA RESOURCES INC dba HUMBOLDT HUMAN RESOURCES, UNITED WISCONSIN INSURANCE COMPANY

Here's a summary of the case for a lawyer: The Appeals Board granted reconsideration to modify an award of temporary disability (TD) benefits. While upholding the applicant's entitlement to TD from May 30, 2020, to July 12, 2020, the Board deferred the issue of ongoing benefits after that date. This deferral was due to insufficient medical evidence to support TD beyond July 12, 2020, despite the treating physician's opinion that the applicant was not yet permanent and stationary. The Board emphasized the need for further development of the medical record regarding future TD entitlement.

WCABAOE/COETemporary Disability IndemnityPermanent and StationaryQualified Medical ExaminerPrimary Treating PhysicianFunctional Restoration ProgramOdd Lot DoctrineSubstantial EvidenceSupplemental Report
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 26, 2005

County of Suffolk v. Coram Equities, LLC

The plaintiff appealed an order denying its motion to compel the defendant to pay prevailing hourly wage rates for a building construction project. The case stemmed from a lease agreement where the defendant, as owner, agreed to construct a building and lease space to the plaintiff, including a clause for prevailing wages "in accordance with New York Labor Law Section 220." Both the Supreme Court and the appellate court affirmed the decision, finding that Labor Law § 220 did not apply to the project. The courts reasoned that the construction did not qualify as a "public works project," a necessary condition for the application of Labor Law § 220. Consequently, the defendant's failure to pay prevailing wages was not a breach of the contractual agreement.

Prevailing Wage LawPublic Works DoctrineLease Contract DisputeLabor Law 220Contractual ObligationAppellate AffirmationConstruction WagesSuffolk County CourtsNew York State LawSpecific Performance Action
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Tap Electrical Contracting Service, Inc. v. Hartnett

The case examines whether Labor Law § 220, mandating State-registered apprentices, applies to construction projects jointly funded by State and Federal governments under the Federal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA). The Court concluded that Labor Law § 220 is applicable to such projects and is not preempted by Federal law. It clarified that Federal regulations do not compel States to utilize Federally-trained workers, granting States significant discretion in approving trainee programs. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was upheld, finding the petitioner in willful violation of Labor Law § 220 for underpaying Federally-registered trainees. The Appellate Division's order was modified to reinstate the Commissioner's original finding and then affirmed.

Labor Law § 220Apprenticeship ProgramsFederal-Aid Highway Act (FAHA)State and Federal FundingPreemption DoctrineDavis-Bacon ActPrevailing WageTrainee ClassificationPublic Work ProjectsAffirmative Action Training
References
9
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 01860 [203 AD3d 1424]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 17, 2022

Matter of Mascali v. Town/Village of Harrison

Charles Mascali, a police officer, filed a workers' compensation claim in 2017 for injuries (chronic pulmonary disease, gastroesophageal reflux disease, dyspnea, shortness of breath) sustained at the World Trade Center site on September 11, 2001. A Workers' Compensation Law Judge initially established the claim, but the Workers' Compensation Board reversed this in June 2020 due to insufficient medical evidence of causation. Mascali applied for reconsideration and/or full Board review, which the Board denied in August 2020. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's denial, finding it was not arbitrary and capricious, as Mascali's appeal concerned only the denial of reconsideration and not the merits of the initial June 2020 decision.

Workers' CompensationAppellate ReviewReconsideration DenialMedical Causation9/11 InjuriesChronic Pulmonary DiseaseGastroesophageal Reflux DiseasePolice OfficerBoard ReviewAbuse of Discretion
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

F. G. Compagni Construction Co. v. Ross

Petitioners appealed judgments that had annulled certain prevailing wage and supplement redeterminations and notices to withhold payment issued under Labor Law sections 220 and 220-b. They contended that the respondent failed to ascertain prevailing wages and supplements by investigating workers in the defined 'locality,' instead conducting county-wide surveys and using union wage rates without proving majority union membership. The court affirmed the vacatur of redeterminations, finding the respondent's methods deviated from statutory mandates and that 1978 amendments to Labor Law section 220 were not retroactive. However, the court modified the judgments by reversing the annulment of notices to withhold payment, ruling that petitioners should have exhausted administrative remedies before seeking judicial review on that matter.

Prevailing WageWage RedeterminationsLabor Law ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAdministrative ReviewRetroactivity of LawPublic Works ContractsUnion Wage ScalesLocality DefinitionExhaustion of Administrative Remedies
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 549 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