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. 17 NY3d 702
Regular Panel Decision

Ovadia v. Office of the Industrial Board of Appeals

The New York Court of Appeals addressed whether a general contractor, HOD Construction Corp., acted as a joint employer of its subcontractor Well Built Construction Corp.'s masonry workers, thereby owing them unpaid wages. The lower courts had found joint employment, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the standard contractor/subcontractor relationship during the bulk of the project did not establish joint employment under the Labor Law. The Court determined that factors relied upon by the Board were common in construction and did not indicate direct control or functional supervision by HOD over Well Built's employees. However, the case was remitted to the Industrial Board of Appeals for a determination on whether HOD's owner made an enforceable promise to pay the workers for a specific six-day period after the subcontractor abandoned the project, which could establish an employment relationship for that limited time.

Joint EmploymentSubcontractor LiabilityUnpaid WagesGeneral Contractor ResponsibilityLabor LawEconomic Reality TestAppellate ReviewRemittalConstruction IndustryWorkers' Rights
References
13
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 24, 1988

Settlement Home Care, Inc. v. Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor

Four related CPLR article 78 proceedings were brought by nonmunicipal petitioners (Settlement Home Care, Inc., Christian Community in Action, Inc., and CABS Home Attendants Service, Inc.) along with the City of New York and the Human Resources Administration, challenging determinations by the Industrial Board of Appeals of the Department of Labor. The determinations affirmed that the Commissioner of Labor had jurisdiction to issue labor violation notices against the nonmunicipal petitioners for failing to meet minimum wage requirements for sleep-in home attendants. The core issue was whether these home attendants were exempt from the State Minimum Wage Act under Labor Law § 651 (5) (a) as 'companions.' The court confirmed the board's finding that the attendants were not exempt because the clients were not considered employers, the principal purpose of the attendants was not companionship, and their principal duties included housekeeping. Consequently, the court confirmed the Industrial Board of Appeals' determinations and dismissed the proceedings on the merits.

Minimum Wage ActHome AttendantsLabor Law ExemptionCPLR Article 78Industrial Board of AppealsSleep-in EmployeesEmployer DefinitionCompanionship ExemptionHousekeeping DutiesAgency Determination Review
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Scott Wetzel Services, Inc. v. New York State Board of Industrial Appeals

The case involves a CPLR article 78 proceeding initiated by a nationwide company, which administers workers’ compensation and general liability claims, against the State Board of Industrial Appeals. The company challenged a Department of Labor determination, later modified by the Board, that its claims examiners were not exempt from Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) overtime pay requirements. The core issue was whether the examiners qualified for an administrative capacity exemption under FLSA. Applying the "short test" and the "production/administrative dichotomy," the court concluded that the examiners were "production workers" as their primary duty was to produce the services the employer offered. Consequently, the court found substantial evidence to support the Board's determination, confirmed the Board's decision, and dismissed the petition.

Overtime PayFLSA ExemptionAdministrative CapacityClaims ExaminersLabor Law ViolationCPLR Article 78Production WorkersState Board of Industrial AppealsWage and Hour DisputesDiscretion and Independent Judgment
References
10
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York City Housing Authority Tenant Selection Division v. State Human Rights Appeal Board

The New York City Housing Authority (NYCHA) initiated a proceeding to review an order from the State Human Rights Appeal Board, which had affirmed a finding by the State Division of Human Rights that NYCHA discriminated against Constance Orlando, a mentally disabled public housing applicant. The court found insufficient evidence to support the discrimination claim. While acknowledging that denying housing solely based on mental disability is unlawful, the court determined that NYCHA denied Orlando's application due to a valid reason: her persistent disruptive, harassing, and threatening behavior, which made her an undesirable tenant according to housing regulations. Consequently, the court granted NYCHA's petition, annulled the Appeal Board's order, denied the cross-application for enforcement, and dismissed the complaint.

DiscriminationMental DisabilityPublic HousingTenant EligibilityUndesirable TenantExecutive LawJudicial ReviewAdministrative OrderDisruptive BehaviorHarassment
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Frangella Mushroom Farms, Inc. v. Zoning Board of Appeals

The petitioner, who operates a mushroom growing farm in the Town of Coeymans, sought a special use permit to construct an apartment building for its migrant laborers. The Zoning Board of Appeals denied the application, citing concerns related to aesthetic harmony, property values, safety, and traffic. However, the court found the Board's 17 specific findings to be arbitrary and capricious, lacking sufficient evidence in the record. The court determined that the proposed housing would not adversely affect the district and would replace existing substandard dwellings without increasing population or traffic. Consequently, the court annulled the Board's determination and mandated the issuance of the special use permit.

Zoning OrdinanceSpecial Use PermitArbitrary and CapriciousLand Use PlanningMigrant HousingAgricultural OperationsJudicial ReviewCPLR Article 78Town of CoeymansAlbany County
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 14, 1992

In re the Claim of Ambrosio

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence, indicating that the claimant was discharged for threatening a co-worker. Although the claimant presented a different version of events, the Board was responsible for resolving all credibility issues. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's findings. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

unemployment insurancemisconductthreatsco-workercredibility determinationappealadministrative decisionemployee terminationbenefits disqualificationappellate review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Bartenders Unlimited, Inc.

Bartenders Unlimited, Inc. appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found its workers were employees for unemployment insurance contributions under Labor Law article 18. This contradicted an earlier Industrial Board of Appeals ruling that the workers were independent contractors for Labor Law articles 6 and 19. Bartenders argued collateral estoppel, but the Board rejected it, a stance affirmed by the court. The court reasoned that the term "employment" is not identically defined across all Labor Law statutes, allowing different administrative bodies to reach distinct conclusions on the mixed issue of law and fact, even with the same evidentiary facts. Therefore, collateral estoppel did not prevent the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board from reaching a different conclusion.

Unemployment InsuranceCollateral EstoppelIndependent ContractorsEmployeesLabor LawAdministrative LawAppealStatutory InterpretationMixed Question of Law and FactEvidentiary Facts
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Louchheim v. Zoning Board of Appeals

Petitioners appealed a judgment from the Supreme Court, Suffolk County, which had denied their CPLR article 78 petition. The petition aimed to review a determination by the Zoning Board of Appeals of the Town of Southampton, dated October 20, 2005. The ZBA's determination had granted NL Housing, LLC, a variance for the enlargement of two structures that served as a labor camp for migrant workers, benefiting from a preexisting nonconforming use. The petitioners argued that this variance violated Southampton Code § 330-167 (B) (1) (a), also known as the 50% rule, which limits nonconforming use expansion to 50% of the floor area as measured from when the use first became nonconforming in 1957. The Appellate Court reversed the Supreme Court's judgment, granted the petition, annulled the ZBA's determination, and denied the application for the variance, finding that the ZBA had incorrectly interpreted the zoning ordinance.

ZoningVarianceNonconforming UseMigrant HousingZoning Board of AppealsCPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory Interpretation50% RuleSuffolk County
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 27, 1982

Weiss v. New York State Human Rights Appeal Board

The State Human Rights Appeal Board's order, dated July 27, 1982, concerning Anna S. Weiss and the New York State Workers’ Compensation Board, has been modified. The court has remanded for further consideration finding number 23, which stated that complainant Anna S. Weiss voluntarily retired from the WCB effective August 17, 1978. Consequently, the associated directives for WCB to pay Anna S. Weiss back pay, based on the salary difference between a Senior Research Analyst and an Assistant Director of Research and Statistics for the period June 22, 1978, to August 17, 1978, and $1,000 for humiliation, embarrassment, and mental anguish, are also subject to further review. The court noted that providing both wage difference and embarrassment damages might be duplicative or that $1,000 is sufficient for punitive purposes. The order is otherwise affirmed.

Human Rights LawEmployment DisputeRetirement BenefitsWage DifferentialEmotional Distress DamagesAdministrative Law AppealJudicial RemandAppellate Panel DecisionDissenting Judicial OpinionConcurring Judicial Opinion
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

National Restaurant Ass'n v. Commissioner of Labor

This case involves an appeal concerning a minimum wage order for fast-food workers. The Commissioner of Labor, following a wage board's recommendation, implemented a minimum wage increase for fast-food workers in chains with 30 or more national establishments, a decision confirmed by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The petitioner challenged the wage order and the IBA's confirmation on grounds of mootness, separation of powers, and violation of the dormant Commerce Clause. The court rejected all arguments, determining the appeal was not moot despite subsequent legislative action, and found the wage order to be within the Commissioner's delegated authority and not discriminatory under the Commerce Clause. Consequently, the court affirmed the determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, upholding the minimum wage increase for fast-food workers.

Minimum WageFast-Food IndustryWage BoardIndustrial Board of AppealsCommissioner of LaborAppellate ReviewSeparation of PowersDormant Commerce ClauseLabor LawAdministrative Law
References
35
Showing 1-10 of 28,063 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