Updated Daily
Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.
The Motion for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeals was denied. The stay is continued until the appellant has an opportunity to apply to the Court of Appeals for permission to appeal, if so advised.
The case involves three consolidated appeals stemming from a personal injury action and a wrongful death action after a pickup truck collided with another vehicle. Robert C. Testerman, a passenger in the pickup truck, commenced a personal injury action. Daniel D. Bigelow initiated a wrongful death action as executor of the estates of Tenny Bigelow and Douglas L. Bigelow, the occupants of the other vehicle. The collision occurred when Rachel L. Zielinski, operating a pickup owned by her employer Pisa Electrical Construction & Manufacturing, Inc., drove through a stop sign. In Appeal No. 2, the court affirmed the dismissal of Testerman's personal injury claim against Pisa, citing Workers' Compensation Law's exclusive remedy provision. However, in Appeal No. 1, the court reversed the summary judgment dismissing Testerman's claim against Daniel Bigelow, finding insufficient evidence that Tenny Bigelow used reasonable care. Similarly, in Appeal No. 3, the court reversed the partial summary judgment on liability granted to Daniel Bigelow in the wrongful death action, for the same reasons as Appeal No. 1.
The Court of Appeals remitted *Matter of Ovadia v Office of the Indus. Bd. of Appeals* (19 NY3d 138 [2012]) back to this Court. The determination of the Industrial Board of Appeals, dated December 14, 2009, which had affirmed an order directing petitioners to pay claimants unpaid wages, was unanimously annulled. The matter has been remanded for further proceedings. These proceedings specifically involve determining whether Ovadia made an enforceable promise to pay workers for their continued work following Bruten’s disappearance and whether the workers relied on this promise by continuing to work at the construction site for six days.
This case involves an appeal by the third-party defendant Styles Steel Erecting & Steel Fabrications and a cross-appeal by the defendant third-party plaintiff 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. The appeals concern an action to recover damages for personal injuries, specifically focusing on motions to set aside a jury verdict regarding fault apportionment and to strike expert witness testimony. The Supreme Court's decision to grant the motion to set aside the verdict finding 6085 Strickland Associates Corp. 70% at fault was affirmed, as no evidence showed its authority to supervise the work. The court also affirmed the denial of Styles Steel's motion to strike expert testimony and to set aside the jury's finding of 30% fault against it, concluding there was a valid line of reasoning for the jury's verdict, including the finding of a 'grave injury' under Workers' Compensation Law § 11. The cross-appeal was dismissed as abandoned, and appeals from earlier orders were dismissed as superseded by the final order.
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.
Plaintiff appealed and defendants cross-appealed an order concerning a personal injury action arising from a workplace accident. Plaintiff sustained a groin strain while working on an elevated surface, guiding a truss lifted by a forklift, accidentally trapping his finger. The Supreme Court initially denied both plaintiff's motion for partial summary judgment and defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment. On appeal, the order was modified; the appellate court granted parts of the cross-motion, dismissing the common-law negligence and Labor Law §§ 200 and 240 (1) causes of action, concluding that plaintiff's injury did not result from a fall or the direct application of gravity, and a safety device would not have prevented it. The Labor Law § 241 (6) cause of action was sustained.
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.
This case involves an appeal and cross-appeal concerning an order from the Supreme Court, Seneca County, related to the death of four-year-old Angelica Pesante in a foster home. The plaintiff's cross-motion for partial summary judgment on liability was denied, and claims against certain defendants were dismissed. The court reviewed alleged violations of New York foster care regulations, including those concerning the maximum number of children and adult supervision, as well as claims of neglect and failure to report child abuse. The appellate court modified the order by granting defendant Julie Marra's motion to dismiss the punitive damages claim against her, affirming the order as modified. The decision centered on whether regulatory violations or alleged neglect were the proximate cause of the child's death and if conduct warranted punitive damages.
The motion seeking leave to appeal from the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion to vacate and the Appellate Division order denying appellant’s motion for leave to appeal to the Court of Appeals was dismissed. The dismissal was based on the ground that the said orders do not finally determine the proceeding within the meaning of the Constitution. The motion for leave to appeal was otherwise denied.
This case involves an appeal from a Workers' Compensation Board decision concerning an employer's entitlement to reimbursement for benefits paid to a claimant. The claimant, a correction officer, sustained a work-related shoulder injury in 2002, leading to a schedule loss of use award. Initially, a WCLJ denied the self-insured employer's request for reimbursement, citing a failure to file the request properly. However, the Workers’ Compensation Board disagreed and awarded the employer $39,172.17 in reimbursement. The claimant appealed this determination, arguing that the reimbursement amount was not supported by substantial evidence. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding sufficient record evidence to support the reimbursement amount and noting the Board's authority to modify prior WCLJ decisions despite a lack of appeal.
Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.