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

Lee v. ABC Carpet & Home

Plaintiff Richard Lee sued ABC Carpet & Home, Jerry Weinrib, and Paul Chapman for back wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and New York Labor Law, asserting he was an employee. Defendants sought summary judgment, contending Lee was an independent contractor. The court employed the five-factor 'Economic Reality Test' to determine employment status. Significant factual disputes emerged concerning employer control, Lee's potential for profit or loss, the required skill for the work, the permanence of the working relationship, and whether carpet installation was an integral part of ABC's business. Given these unresolved material facts, the court denied the Defendants' motion for summary judgment.

Fair Labor Standards ActNew York Labor LawEmployee ClassificationIndependent ContractorSummary Judgment MotionEconomic Reality TestWage DisputesEmployment LawCarpet InstallersEmployer Control
References
24
Case No. CV-24-0287
Regular Panel Decision
Sep 25, 2025

In the Matter of the Claim of Lee Trickey

Claimant Lee Trickey was injured on a construction site while installing roof trusses for Black River Plumbing, Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. He filed a personal injury action, while Black River's workers' compensation carrier sought to establish a workers' compensation claim, arguing Trickey was an employee. Trickey maintained he was an independent contractor. The Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Board, citing the Construction Industry Fair Play Act (Labor Law § 861-c), found an employer-employee relationship. On appeal, the Appellate Division reversed, finding that the Board did not provide sufficient findings of fact regarding its assessment of the three-part ABC test to determine if Trickey was an independent contractor and whether the presumption of employment was rebutted, despite appearing to satisfy the last two prongs of the test. The matter was remitted to the Board for further proceedings to properly consider the ABC test.

Employer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorConstruction Industry Fair Play ActLabor LawWorkers' Compensation BoardABC TestSubstantial EvidenceRemittalAppellate ReviewStatutory Presumption
References
3
Case No. 2018 NY Slip Op 02232 [159 AD3d 1321]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 29, 2018

Matter of Larosa v. ABC Supply Co., Inc.

Claimant Stephen Larosa, a crane operator, sought workers' compensation benefits for a right knee injury in April 2015. The employer, ABC Supply Company, Inc., and its carrier controverted the claim, arguing it did not arise from employment. Both a Workers' Compensation Law Judge and the Workers' Compensation Board found the injury to be work-related. The employer appealed this decision to the Appellate Division, Third Department. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding that Larosa's injury arose out of and in the course of his employment, despite arguments concerning inconsistent accounts, an idiopathic condition, and insufficient medical evidence.

Workers' Compensation ClaimRight Knee InjuryCausally Related InjuryArising Out of EmploymentCourse of EmploymentPresumption of CompensabilityIdiopathic ConditionPreexisting ConditionSubstantial EvidenceAppellate Review
References
10
Case No. 2025 NY Slip Op 03864
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 26, 2025

Hasan v. Macerich Co.

In this case, Mohammed Hasan, an injured worker, moved for partial summary judgment on his Labor Law § 240 (1) claim, which was granted. The court found the ladder provided was inadequate, leading to Hasan's fall. Defendants Macerich and ABC Imaging, Inc. had their motions to dismiss Hasan's Labor Law § 240 (1) claim denied. Macerich was granted summary judgment on its contractual indemnification claim against ABC, despite the contract being dated after the accident but effective retroactively. However, Macerich's claim that ABC breached its insurance procurement clause should not have been dismissed, as a certificate of insurance is not conclusive evidence. The Appellate Division modified the lower court's order to deny ABC's motion to dismiss Macerich's breach of contract claim and otherwise affirmed the decision.

Labor Law § 240(1) ClaimFall from LadderInadequate LadderContractual IndemnificationBreach of Contract for InsuranceSummary Judgment MotionRetroactive Contract ProvisionSole Proximate Cause DefenseAppellate Division First DepartmentWorkers' Compensation Law
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 28, 1985

Angel Music, Inc. v. ABC Sports, Inc.

Angel Music, Inc., along with a class of music publishers, sued ABC Sports, Inc. and The Harry Fox Agency, Inc. (Fox), alleging copyright infringement against ABC and breach of fiduciary duty against Fox. The copyright infringement claim stemmed from ABC's alleged unauthorized use of a copyrighted song in an Olympics broadcast. Angel Music contended Fox, acting as their trustee and agent, breached its fiduciary duty by failing to enforce their synchronization rights. Fox moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, arguing the breach of fiduciary duty was a state law claim without diversity. The court granted Fox's motion, concluding there was insufficient factual overlap for pendent party jurisdiction but allowed Angel Music to renew the claim after discovery if a relevant defense involving Fox emerged.

Copyright InfringementBreach of Fiduciary DutySubject Matter JurisdictionPendent JurisdictionPendent Party JurisdictionFederal Question JurisdictionClass ActionSynchronization RightsMusic PublishersTelevision Producers
References
12
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Baldwin v. City of New York

Cecil Baldwin, an employee of ABC Ambulette Services, Inc., suffered an initial work-related injury in December 1998, for which he received workers' compensation benefits. In March 1999, while being transported in an ABC ambulette driven by Philip Gamer, he was involved in an accident that aggravated his prior injuries. The Workers' Compensation Board continued his benefits, deeming the aggravation a 'consequential injury.' Defendants ABC Ambulette Services, Inc., and Philip Gamer moved for summary judgment to dismiss the complaint and cross-claims, arguing workers' compensation was the exclusive remedy. The Supreme Court denied their motion. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the denial, holding that workers' compensation does not preclude a common-law action for aggravated injuries not arising out of employment, and the appellants failed to eliminate all factual issues regarding the injury's scope of employment. Additionally, they failed to establish entitlement to summary judgment dismissing cross-claims for indemnification.

Personal InjuryWorkers' CompensationAggravated InjuryScope of EmploymentSummary JudgmentExclusive RemedyCommon-Law ActionNegligenceContributionIndemnification
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 01, 2009

People v. Nunn

This case addresses whether a court's discretion to deem a misdemeanor complaint charging a drug offense as an information, without a field test or laboratory analysis, violates a defendant's due process rights. The court distinguishes People v Kalin and Matter of Jahron S., applying the three-factor test from Mathews v Eldridge. It concludes that the substantial private interest in physical liberty and the risk of erroneous deprivation necessitate a laboratory report or field test in most drug-related cases, imposing minimal burden on the prosecution. Specifically, for defendant Mr. Nunn, the misdemeanor complaint was deemed an information on June 1, 2009, after the certified laboratory analysis was filed.

Due ProcessCriminal ProcedureMisdemeanorControlled SubstanceDrug PossessionMisdemeanor InformationMisdemeanor ComplaintPrima Facie CaseLaboratory AnalysisField Test
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 01, 2010

Commissioner of Social Services v. Dimarcus C.

The Family Court in New York County denied the appellant's motion for genetic testing and affirmed an order of filiation declaring the appellant to be the father of the subject child. The court found it was in the child's best interest to estop the respondent from denying paternity, as the respondent had consistently presented himself as the father to family, friends, and the child, providing support and care. Additionally, the 12-year-old child believed the respondent was his father. The court was not required to identify the biological father, having already dismissed a petition against another individual who was excluded by DNA testing, and a father-son relationship existed between the child and the respondent.

Paternity DisputeFiliation OrderEquitable EstoppelChild WelfareParental RightsGenetic Testing DenialAppellate ReviewFamily Court DecisionBest Interest of ChildImplied Paternity
References
1
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 21, 2006

Perez v. Munoz

The father appealed a Family Court order from Kings County, dated August 21, 2006, which denied his petition to modify a prior visitation order and for paternity testing. Specifically, he sought to have a social worker transport his children to his place of incarceration for visitation. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's decision, stating that the court lacked jurisdiction to compel relief against an un-summoned social worker or agency. Additionally, the denial of paternity testing was upheld, as the proper procedure for challenging or establishing paternity, without a support order being sought, is through a separate Family Court Act article 5 proceeding.

CustodyVisitationPaternity TestingIncarcerationFamily Court ActAppellate ReviewJurisdictionFamily LawParental RightsJudicial Procedure
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

People v. Rodriguez

The defendant, indicted for resisting arrest and DWI, filed a motion to prevent the District Attorney from using evidence of his refusal to take a chemical test at trial. The defendant argued that admitting such evidence violates his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination, despite a 1973 amendment to Vehicle and Traffic Law § 1194 that permitted it. The court analyzed precedents, distinguishing between the non-testimonial nature of the test itself and the communicative nature of a refusal. It concluded that a refusal constitutes a communication, thus falling under Fifth Amendment protection. Consequently, the court granted the defendant's motion, ruling that such evidence is inadmissible.

Fifth AmendmentSelf-incriminationChemical Test RefusalDWIAdmissibility of EvidenceConstitutional RightsTestimonial EvidenceImplied Consent LawPreclusion MotionCriminal Procedure
References
19
Showing 1-10 of 501 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