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

Dye v. McIntyre Floral Co.

This suit was brought by employees against McIntyre Floral Company, alleging a deficiency in wages under the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938. The core issue revolves around whether the employees are exempt from the Act's provisions due to their employment in agriculture, specifically in handling "agricultural or horticultural commodities for market." The chancellor initially sustained a demurrer, agreeing that the complainants were exempt. The court examined the Act's definition of "agriculture," which includes the cultivation and harvesting of horticultural commodities and practices incidental to farming, such as preparation for market. The court concluded that the employees' work, involving the receipt, care, and preparation of nursery products for shipment, falls under the "preparation for market" clause of the agricultural exemption, affirming the initial judgment. This construction aligns with the understanding of agriculture's seasonal nature, which includes horticulture.

Fair Labor Standards ActAgricultural ExemptionHorticultural CommoditiesNursery BusinessWage DeficiencyInterstate CommercePreparation for MarketFarm Laborer ExemptionStatutory InterpretationDavidson County
References
3
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. 2021 NY Slip Op 00461
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 28, 2021

Matter of Executive Cleaning Servs. Corp. v. New York State Dept. of Labor

Executive Cleaning Services Corporation and Cef Saiz, the petitioners, challenged a determination by the Commissioner of Labor, alleging they failed to pay prevailing wages for cleaning services provided to the Ossining Public Library. The Department of Labor initiated an investigation following an employee complaint and concluded that the contract was subject to the prevailing wage provisions of Labor Law article 9. Petitioners argued the library was not a 'public agency' as defined by Labor Law § 230 (3), thus exempting their contract from prevailing wage requirements. The Appellate Division, Third Department, ultimately agreed with the petitioners, finding that despite its public function and ties to the school district, the Ossining Public Library does not fit the statutory definition of a public agency under Labor Law § 230 (3). Consequently, the Commissioner's determination was annulled, the petition granted, and the action for declaratory judgment severed and remitted to the Supreme Court.

Prevailing Wage LawLabor Law Article 9Public Agency DefinitionOssining Public LibraryEducation CorporationCPLR Article 78 ProceedingDeclaratory Judgment ActionBuilding Service ContractsSchool District Public LibraryAdministrative Law
References
18
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Brock v. National Health Corp.

The Secretary of Labor initiated an action against National Health Corporation (NHC) alleging willful and repeated violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), specifically regarding unpaid overtime and failure to maintain accurate records for its staff accountants. NHC argued that these employees were exempt administrative personnel. The court, however, determined that the staff accountants' duties were primarily bookkeeping and did not involve the requisite discretion and independent judgment for exemption. Given NHC's history of similar violations, the court found the company's conduct willful and ruled in favor of the Secretary of Labor, mandating payment of three years of back wages and an equivalent sum in liquidated damages.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayRecord KeepingAdministrative ExemptionWillful ViolationBack WagesLiquidated DamagesEmployee ClassificationStaff AccountantsBookkeeping
References
22
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Morelock v. Danbrod Realty Corporation

Plaintiff, injured due to a scaffold collapse during a house renovation project overseen by Joel Levin for Danbrod Realty Corporation, initiated a personal injury lawsuit, alleging negligence and violations of Labor Law sections 200, 240(1), and 241(6) against Danbrod, Levin, and Morton Schermerhorn, Jr. The Supreme Court initially granted Danbrod's cross-motion for summary judgment on the Labor Law § 240(1) claim. However, on appeal, the court determined that Danbrod, a real estate development corporation purchasing the property solely for commercial renovation and resale, did not qualify for the homeowner exemption from strict liability under Labor Law § 240(1). Consequently, the appellate court reversed the lower court's decision regarding Danbrod and awarded summary judgment to the plaintiff on the issue of liability against Danbrod.

Labor Lawscaffold collapsepersonal injurysummary judgmentstrict liabilityowner liabilitycommercial use exemptionreal estate developmentrenovation projectAppellate Division
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Van Amerogen v. Donnini

This dissenting opinion addresses the interpretation of the 'owners of one and two-family dwellings' exemption from Labor Law liability under sections 240 and 241. Justice Levine argues that the exemption, intended to protect typical homeowners, should be strictly construed and not applied to owners who acquire residential property purely for investment and income-producing purposes. The dissent references legislative history from the Law Revision Commission, highlighting the rationale that the nondelegable duty to workers is based on the owner's dominant economic position, which breaks down for typical homeowners but not for real estate developers or investors. Therefore, the dissent concludes that such investors fall outside the protected class, maintaining that the Supreme Court correctly denied summary judgment to the defendants. The final order, however, reversed this decision, granted summary judgment to defendants, and dismissed the complaint.

Labor LawStatutory InterpretationLegislative HistoryExemption ClauseOne-Two Family DwellingsOwner LiabilityConstruction AccidentsSummary JudgmentDissenting OpinionAppellate Review
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Hodgson v. BARGE, WAGGONER AND SUMNER, INCORPORATED

This action was brought to enjoin Barge, Waggoner and Sumner, Incorporated from violating the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) regarding overtime compensation. The central issue was whether ten of the defendant's employees qualified for professional or executive exemptions under the Act. The court determined that the employees, being paid hourly and lacking a predetermined salary, did not meet the stringent exemption requirements. Consequently, the court instructed the plaintiff's attorney to calculate the overtime compensation due to these employees. However, due to the defendant's demonstrated good faith and absence of willful violation, the court declined to impose liquidated damages or grant a permanent injunction.

Fair Labor Standards ActOvertime PayEmployee ExemptionsSalary BasisExecutive EmployeeProfessional EmployeeAdministrative EmployeeHourly WagesInjunction DenialLiquidated Damages
References
12
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06406
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Gabel (Bankers Life & Cas. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Christopher M. Gabel, an insurance broker, sought unemployment insurance benefits after his agreement with Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLC) was terminated. While an Administrative Law Judge initially denied benefits, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, ruling that BLC was liable for contributions. The Board found that Gabel's services were not statutorily exempted under Labor Law § 511 (21) because his actual work was inconsistent with the contract's statutory provisions, and BLC maintained sufficient supervision and control to constitute an employment relationship. BLC appealed, contending its written agreement met the Labor Law requirements and that Gabel was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decision, stating that the actual performance of services must conform to the statutory provisions, not just their inclusion in the contract. The court also found substantial evidence that BLC exercised significant control over Gabel's work, thus establishing an employment relationship.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsIndependent ContractorEmployment RelationshipInsurance AgentLabor Law § 511 (21)Unemployment Insurance Appeal BoardAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommon-Law TestEmployer Control
References
11
Case No. 2021 NY Slip Op 06405 [199 AD3d 1196]
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 18, 2021

Matter of Paratore (Bankers Life & Cas. Co.--Commissioner of Labor)

Claimant Paul Paratore, an insurance broker and agent, filed for unemployment insurance benefits after his relationship with Bankers Life and Casualty Company (BLC) ended. The Department of Labor determined him eligible, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which found his services were not statutorily exempt and that BLC exercised sufficient control to establish an employment relationship under unemployment insurance law. BLC appealed, arguing its agreement satisfied Labor Law § 511 (21) and challenging the employment relationship finding. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, agreeing that the statutory requirements were not met and that substantial evidence supported the finding of an employment relationship between BLC and the claimant.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment StatusIndependent ContractorInsurance IndustryLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewControl TestStatutory InterpretationAgent AgreementBenefits Eligibility
References
10
Case No. CA 16-00663
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 10, 2017

INTERNATIONAL UNION (DISTRICT) v. NEW YORK STATE DEPT. OF LABOR

This case involves an appeal concerning the interpretation of Labor Law § 220 (3-e) in New York, specifically regarding the prevailing wage for glazier apprentices on public works projects. Plaintiffs, a consortium of unions, individuals, and businesses, challenged the New York State Department of Labor's (DOL) interpretation that glazier apprentices performing work classified for another trade (like ironworkers) must be paid at the journeyman rate for that other trade. The Supreme Court initially dismissed the plaintiffs' complaint, upholding the DOL's position. However, the Appellate Division reversed this decision, ruling that Labor Law § 220 (3-e) permits glazier apprentices registered in a bona fide program to be paid apprentice rates, irrespective of whether the work performed falls under a different trade classification. The court concluded that the DOL's interpretation was contrary to the plain meaning of the statute and thus not entitled to deference.

Apprenticeship ProgramsLabor LawPublic Works ProjectsGlaziersIronworkersPrevailing WageStatutory InterpretationNew York State Department of LaborDeclaratory JudgmentAppellate Review
References
33
Showing 1-10 of 9,000 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