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

Matter of Kent v. Cuomo

Petitioners, state employees typically ineligible for overtime, challenged a determination by the State Budget Director regarding overtime compensation following Hurricane Sandy. The Budget Director's bulletin authorized overtime for hours worked beyond 47.5 per week, rather than the 40-hour threshold sought by petitioners. Petitioners argued that the Budget Director was statutorily required to compensate for all hours over 40. The Supreme Court partially dismissed their application, leading to this appeal. The appellate court deferred to the Budget Director's interpretation of Civil Service Law § 134 (6), finding the 47.5-hour threshold was not irrational or unreasonable given the agency's expertise and consistent past application. The court also held that employer respondents did not act irrationally in not requesting compensation below the 47.5-hour threshold, as this authority rests solely with the Budget Director.

Overtime CompensationExtreme EmergencyHurricane SandyState EmployeesCivil Service LawStatutory InterpretationAdministrative DiscretionNormal Workweek47.5-Hour ThresholdCPLR Article 78
References
8
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 05144
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 13, 2022

Rosa v. 47 E. 34th St. (NY), L.P.

This case involves an appeal regarding the summary judgment motions in a Labor Law action stemming from an electrical accident. Decedent Danny Rosa, an employee of June Electrical Corp., was electrocuted while working on an energized bus duct at a building managed by Bridgestreet Corporate Housing, LLC and owned by 47 East 34th Street (NY), L.P. and CIM Group, L.P. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment dismissing plaintiff's Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims but denied dismissal of Labor Law § 200 and common-law negligence claims. The Appellate Division modified the orders, reinstating the Labor Law §§ 240 (1) and 241 (6) claims against 47 East 34th, CIM, and Bridgestreet, finding issues of fact regarding whether Rosa was compelled to work on an energized bus duct and the supervision of the work. The court affirmed the denial of summary judgment for June Electrical Corp. on indemnification and contribution claims, noting the failure to eliminate factual issues regarding grave injury.

Electrical AccidentLabor Law ClaimsSummary JudgmentWorkplace SafetyBuilding ConstructionElectrocutionAppellate ReviewDuty of CareCommon-Law NegligenceIndustrial Code Violations
References
17
Case No. 2023 NY Slip Op 04702 [219 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 21, 2023

47 E. 34th St. (NY) L.P. v. BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc.

In 47 E. 34th St. (NY) L.P. v BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc., the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed a Supreme Court judgment that had granted summary judgment to the plaintiff, 47 East 34th Street (NY) L.P. The plaintiff had sought to hold Versa Capital Management, LLC, and Domus BWW Funding, LLC liable as successors or alter egos of BridgeStreet Worldwide, Inc. (BWW) on a lease guaranty. The Appellate Division found that the lower court erred by relying on a mistaken belief of a 'limited factual issue' and misinterpreting previous admissions. It concluded that documentary evidence disproved successor and alter ego liability, as BWW's assets were transferred to nonparties, not to Versa or Domus Funding. Consequently, the Appellate Division granted summary judgment to Versa Capital Management, LLC, and Domus BWW Funding, LLC, dismissing all claims against them.

Successor LiabilityAlter EgoFraudulent ConveyanceSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewCorporate DominationLoan ForeclosureForbearance AgreementVeil PiercingPersonal Jurisdiction
References
17
Case No. ADJ4387448 (SJO 0267422)
Regular
Mar 11, 2014

BALGOVIND SHARMA vs. LAM RESEARCH CORPORATION, MATRIX ABSENCE MANAGEMENT

The Court of Appeal ordered a supplemental attorney's fee award for applicant's counsel for successfully defending against the defendant's petition for writ of review. The Board reviewed the attorney's claimed hours and rate, deeming some time entries excessive and clerical tasks non-compensable. Ultimately, the Board awarded $5,480.00 in attorney's fees plus $47.74 in costs, totaling $5,527.74, and clarified this award is in addition to any compensation owed. The Board also rejected the defendant's argument that the third-party credit applied to this supplemental fee award.

Labor Code § 5801Supplemental Attorney's FeePetition for Writ of ReviewCourt of Appeal RemandApplicant's AttorneyReasonable Attorney FeesHourly RateTime and EffortCase ComplexityClerical Tasks
References
2
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 00411 [234 AD3d 623]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2025

Rodriguez v. Riverside Ctr. Site 5 Owner LLC

Richard Rodriguez, a delivery truck driver, sustained injuries after falling into a hole at a construction site. The Supreme Court initially granted summary judgment to defendants Riverside Center Site 5 Owner LLC, Tishman Construction Corporation, and Five Star Electric Corp., dismissing Rodriguez's Labor Law claims. Upon appeal, the Appellate Division, First Department, modified the lower court's decision. The court reinstated Rodriguez's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, granting him partial summary judgment on liability, reasoning that his tile delivery work was "necessary and incidental" to a protected activity under the statute. However, the dismissal of the Labor Law § 200 claim against Five Star Electric Corp. was affirmed, as Five Star, an electrical contractor, was deemed not a proper Labor Law defendant with supervisory control over the injury site.

Labor LawConstruction AccidentSummary JudgmentAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationPersonal InjuryDuty of CareWorker SafetyProtected ActivityThird-Party Action
References
9
Case No. 02-21-00364-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Texas Health Huguley, Inc., D/B/A Texas Health Huguley Hospital Fort Worth South, Dr. Jason Seiden, John Does 1-5, and Jane Roes 1-5 v. Erin Jones, Individually and as Legal Representative and Next Friend of Jason Jones

Jason Jones, suffering from post-COVID-19 complications, had his wife, Erin Jones, sue Texas Health Huguley Hospital and Dr. Jason Seiden to compel Ivermectin administration. The trial court issued a temporary injunction, ordering the hospital to grant temporary privileges to Dr. Mary Talley Bowden for this purpose. The Second Appellate District of Texas at Fort Worth reversed and vacated the injunction, holding that the judiciary cannot substitute its judgment for that of medical professionals in treatment and credentialing decisions without a valid legal basis. The court found Mrs. Jones failed to prove a probable right to recovery on any viable cause of action, including alleged violations of informed consent, pandemic liability waivers, CMS waivers, or the Right to Try Act, or breaches of implied contracts or the Hippocratic Oath.

Temporary InjunctionMedical TreatmentIvermectinCOVID-19 AftereffectsHospital PrivilegesJudicial InterventionMedical DiscretionStandard of CareDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
68
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 03, 2013

De Ping Song v. 47 Old Country, Inc.

Plaintiffs, salon workers (De Ping Song, Song Li, Yan Zhang, Chun Sen Zhu, Yang Xu, Jie Yi), sued the original defendants (Kui Soon Cho, Bae Kim, Hae Sook Kim, Hye Young Choi, and 47 Old Country, Inc.) for wage, hour, and employment discrimination violations, securing a $474,011.43 judgment in 2012 that remained unpaid. Subsequently, plaintiffs initiated a Rule 69 proceeding to impose successor liability on third-parties Inhae Corp. and Myung Ryun Park. The court applied the 'substantial continuity' test, finding Inhae Corp. liable as a successor due to clear notice of the judgment and the original defendants' likely inability to pay. However, Inhae Corp.'s liability was limited to the original jury verdict amount for unpaid wages, excluding liquidated damages and prejudgment interest, and Myung Ryun Park was not held personally liable.

Wage and Hour LawEmployment DiscriminationSuccessor LiabilityFLSA (Fair Labor Standards Act)Rule 69 FRCPCPLR 5225Substantial Continuity TestDe Facto MergerMere ContinuationFraudulent Transfer
References
28
Case No. 09-03-051 CV
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2003

Magnolia Bend Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. v. John J. McDonnell and Montgomery County Emergency Services District No. 5

The Magnolia Bend Volunteer Fire Department, Inc. (Fire Department) sued Montgomery County Emergency Services District No. 5 (the District) and John McDonnell, alleging improper transfer of property and breach of fiduciary duty. The District counterclaimed, asserting the original deed placing title in the Fire Department's name was constitutionally void and seeking a resulting trust. The trial court sided with the District, finding the deed void and imposing a resulting trust, and ruled against the Fire Department's claims. The Fire Department appealed, raising issues regarding McDonnell's fiduciary duty, the voidness of the deed, and the imposition of a resulting trust. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's judgment, finding no reversible error in the trial court's findings.

Warranty DeedAssignment of LeaseBreach of Fiduciary DutyResulting TrustConstitutional LawTexas ConstitutionProperty OwnershipPublic FundsVolunteer Fire DepartmentEmergency Services District
References
12
Case No. No. 11, No. 12
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 26, 2019

Lilya Andryeyeva v. New York Health Care , Adriana Moreno v. Future Care Health Services

The New York Court of Appeals addressed a common issue in two joint appeals: whether home health care aides on 24-hour shifts must be paid for each hour. The Department of Labor (DOL) interpreted its Wage Order (12 NYCRR part 142) to allow payment for at least 13 hours if the employee receives at least 8 hours for sleep (with 5 uninterrupted) and 3 hours for meals. The Appellate Division rejected this, but the Court of Appeals reversed, deferring to DOL's interpretation as rational and consistent with the Wage Order's plain language. The cases were remitted for lower courts to evaluate class certification issues in accordance with DOL's interpretation.

Home Health Care24-Hour ShiftsMinimum Wage ActWage OrderDepartment of Labor InterpretationClass CertificationAppellate ReviewLabor Law ViolationsSleep BreaksMeal Breaks
References
49
Case No. ADJ8083715
Regular
Sep 15, 2025

KAREN WHISNANT vs. SUBSEQUENT INJURIES BENEFITS TRUST FUND

The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board granted reconsideration to address whether apportionment applies when calculating the subsequent permanent disability threshold for SIBTF benefits. Applicant Karen Whisnant's eligibility for SIBTF benefits hinged on this interpretation, with the WCJ initially finding her eligible based on a 42% disability without apportionment. The Board affirmed the WCJ's April 5, 2022 Findings of Fact but clarified that apportionment is not considered when determining the 5% or 35% SIBTF eligibility threshold, citing precedents like Bookout v. Workers' Comp. Appeals Bd. Consequently, the Board's decision ensures that the applicant's subsequent injury rating of 42% (unapportioned) qualifies her for benefits.

Subsequent Injuries Benefits Trust FundSIBTFpermanent disabilityapportionmentLabor Code section 4751eligibility thresholdWCJreconsiderationFindings of FactBookout
References
10
Showing 1-10 of 2,906 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