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. 2019 NY Slip Op 05238 [173 AD3d 1571]
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 27, 2019

Matter of Kriplin (Community Newspaper Group LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

Jonathan Kriplin, a newspaper carrier for Community Newspaper Group LLC (now Community First Holdings, Inc. - CFHI), applied for unemployment insurance benefits after ceasing deliveries. The Department of Labor and an Administrative Law Judge determined that Kriplin and other carriers were employees, making CFHI liable for unemployment insurance contributions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board upheld these findings. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's decisions, citing substantial evidence of an employment relationship, consistent with prior cases involving CFHI and similar workers. The court dismissed CFHI's arguments regarding independent contractor status and First Amendment rights.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployment RelationshipIndependent ContractorNewspaper CarriersAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceDepartment of LaborUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardLabor LawFirst Amendment Rights
References
4
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 04286
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 22, 2024

Reeves v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.

This case concerns a defamation lawsuit filed by Karl Reeves and his associated companies against Associated Newspapers Ltd. and reporter Anneta Konstantinides. The lawsuit stemmed from an online article detailing Reeves' contentious divorce, child custody battle, and prior criminal charges. Defendants argued the claims constituted a Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation (SLAPP) and were protected under fair report privilege. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint but denied attorneys' fees. On appeal, the Appellate Division clarified the "substantial basis in law" standard for anti-SLAPP suits, ruling it is a higher bar than merely avoiding frivolousness. The court concluded that the plaintiffs' claims lacked this substantial basis, thus entitling defendants to mandatory attorneys' fees. The case was modified to grant defendants' motion under CPLR 3211(g) and remanded for calculation of fees.

SLAPP suitAnti-SLAPP lawDefamationCivil Rights LawCPLR 3211(g)Attorneys' feesPublic interestSubstantial basisFair report privilegeTortious interference
References
44
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1979

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

The New York Times Company (Times) and the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) are embroiled in a dispute over staffing levels at the Times' Carlstadt, New Jersey facility. The Times initiated reduced manning for daily paper production, which the NMDU deemed a breach of their collective bargaining agreement, leading to a sustained work stoppage. Following an interim arbitration award that the NMDU rejected, the Times sought a preliminary injunction in court. The District Court, presided over by Judge Sweet, determined that the manning dispute is subject to the arbitration provisions of the collective bargaining agreement. Consequently, the court directed the NMDU to cease its work stoppage and proceed to arbitration, while also scheduling an evidentiary hearing to assess the criteria for issuing a preliminary injunction against the union.

Collective BargainingArbitrationWork StoppagePreliminary InjunctionLabor DisputeManning DisputeFederal PolicyNorris-LaGuardia ActCollective Bargaining AgreementJudicial Review
References
5
Case No. 2024 NY Slip Op 01898
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 09, 2024

Karl Reeves, C.E.I.N.Y. Corp. v. Associated Newspapers, Ltd.

This case involves a defamation lawsuit filed by Karl Reeves and his companies against Associated Newspapers Ltd. and reporter Anneta Konstantinides, stemming from an online article about Reeves' contentious divorce, custody battle, and criminal charges. Defendants sought dismissal under New York's anti-SLAPP law, arguing the article concerned matters of public interest and plaintiffs' claims lacked a substantial legal basis. The Appellate Division, First Department, affirmed the dismissal of the complaint, finding the alleged defamatory statements privileged and the tort claims legally deficient. Crucially, the court reversed the denial of attorneys' fees, ruling that the anti-SLAPP law's mandatory fee provisions applied to the continued litigation and that plaintiffs failed to demonstrate a substantial basis for their claims. The case was remanded for the sole purpose of calculating these mandatory attorneys' fees.

Anti-SLAPP LawDefamationAttorneys' FeesPublic InterestSubstantial Basis in LawCPLR 3211(g)Appellate ProcedureFreedom of SpeechNew York CourtsMedia Law
References
42
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

New York Times Co. v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union of New York & Vicinity

The New York Times Company initiated a contempt action against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union of New York and Vicinity (NMDU) and three union officials (Douglas LaChance, Lawrence May, Monte Rosenberg). The action stemmed from the defendants' alleged violation of a June 4, 1980 consent order, which mandated compliance with "status quo" rulings by an Impartial Chairman in collective bargaining disputes. On September 17, 1980, NMDU members engaged in a work stoppage following an employee's suspension, despite an Impartial Chairman's ruling that the suspension did not alter the status quo and ordering a return to work. The court found NMDU and Lawrence May guilty of contempt, ordering them to pay $229,718 in compensatory damages to the Times. However, the court denied the application for contempt against Douglas LaChance and Monte Rosenberg, and also denied the Times' request for a prospective fine.

Labor DisputeContempt of CourtNo-Strike ClauseArbitrationCollective Bargaining AgreementWork StoppageDamagesUnion LiabilityWildcat StrikeStatus Quo Ruling
References
11
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Paolucci v. Capital Newspapers

This case involves consolidated appeals from four decisions of the Workers' Compensation Board. Initially, the Board ruled that the claimants, adult newspaper carriers for Capital Newspapers, were independent contractors and thus ineligible for workers' compensation benefits. This determination was appealed, and in the case of Mary A. Paolucci, the matter was remitted for reconsideration due to the Board's inconsistent decisions in similar prior cases. On remittal, the Board reversed its original findings and determined that all claimants were employees within the meaning of the Workers' Compensation Law. The employer, Capital Newspapers, subsequently appealed these new decisions. The appellate court affirmed the Board's latest decisions, finding substantial evidence to support the conclusion that the employer exercised a sufficient degree of control over the claimants' delivery methods and timing to establish an employer-employee relationship.

Worker classificationEmployee statusIndependent contractorWorkers' compensationJudicial reviewAdministrative lawEmployer controlNewspaper deliveryAppellate courtRemittal order
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Peck v. Democrat and Chronicle/Gannett Newspapers

The plaintiff, a newspaper carrier, sued the defendant newspaper and a manager for hostile environment sexual harassment under Title VII and state common law claims. The defendant newspaper moved for summary judgment, arguing the plaintiff was an independent contractor, not an employee, and thus Title VII did not apply. The Court applied the common law agency test, analyzing factors like control over work, source of tools, ability to hire assistance, and tax treatment. Ultimately, the Court found the plaintiff was an independent contractor, granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment on the Title VII claim, and declined supplemental jurisdiction over the remaining state law claims.

Employment DiscriminationTitle VIISexual HarassmentHostile Work EnvironmentSummary JudgmentIndependent ContractorEmployee ClassificationCommon Law Agency TestSupplemental JurisdictionCivil Rights Act of 1964
References
19
Case No. ADJ1914194
Regular
Feb 18, 2010

RAFAEL TAPIA, JR., KATHRYN YOLKEN vs. ARGUS NEWSPAPER/ANG NEWSPAPERS, LIBERTY MUTUAL INSURANCE COMPANY

The Department of Health Care Services (DHCS) sought reconsideration of an order approving a compromise and release in a workers' compensation case. DHCS, as a lien claimant, argued the order should be set aside due to alleged assurances of a hearing and ex parte communications. The Appeals Board dismissed DHCS's petition, finding they were not aggrieved by the order. The order approved DHCS's lien claim and deferred the issue of applicant's attorney's fees, meaning those issues were not determined by the order.

Workers' Compensation Appeals BoardCompromise and ReleaseLien ClaimantPetition for ReconsiderationAggrieved PartyEx Parte CommunicationsAttorneys' FeesLitigation ExpensesDepartment of Health Care ServicesMedi-Cal
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. NEWSPAPER AND MAIL DELIVERERS'UNION

This opinion addresses an appeal within the long-standing civil rights case initiated in 1973 by a class of private plaintiffs and the EEOC against the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union and numerous publishers for discriminatory practices. The original suit resulted in a 1974 Consent Decree establishing an affirmative action program for newspaper deliverers. The current matter involves an appeal by Magazine Distributors, Inc. (MDI) and MDI Distributors, Limited Partnership, challenging a determination by court-appointed Administrator William S. Ellis. The Administrator had asserted jurisdiction over Claim 274, filed by the NMDU, which alleged that MDI and the Partnership violated the Consent Decree by refusing to hire former Imperial News Co. employees represented by the NMDU after MDI acquired Imperial's assets. MDI argued the Administrator lacked jurisdiction, contending the claim was purely about union discrimination and that prior NLRB and Bankruptcy Court decisions precluded the Administrator's review. The Court affirmed the Administrator's jurisdiction, holding that his broad authority under the Settlement Agreement extends to investigating whether an asset sale was a deliberate attempt to circumvent the Consent Decree, an issue not previously litigated in other forums. The matter is remanded for an evidentiary hearing.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionConsent Decree EnforcementSuccessor LiabilityUnion DiscriminationJurisdiction DisputeAdministrator ReviewAsset Sale CircumventionLabor LawTitle VII
References
10
Case No. 73 Civ. 3058
Regular Panel Decision

Patterson v. Newspaper & Mail Deliverers' Union

This opinion and order addresses a long-standing civil rights action concerning alleged discrimination against minorities in the newspaper delivery industry by the Newspaper and Mail Deliverers’ Union (NMDU) and various publishers. The court reviews and affirms a determination by Administrator William S. Ellis regarding “Claim 186,” which involved violations of a 1974 Consent Decree, specifically concerning hiring procedures for Group III shapers at The New York Times. The Administrator found that the Times and NMDU violated the Settlement Agreement by unilaterally deviating from a 3/2 minority hiring ratio, implementing discriminatory application procedures, and engaging in intentional racial discrimination in offlist hiring and Group III list placement. The court also affirms the Administrator's conclusions that certain non-minority intervenors lacked standing and that back pay and attorneys' fees are appropriate remedies under the Settlement Agreement, which is deemed compliant with Title VII. The case is remanded to the Administrator for further evidentiary hearings to determine specific back pay amounts and the relative liability of The Times and the NMDU.

Employment DiscriminationAffirmative ActionConsent DecreeTitle VIIRacial DiscriminationHiring PracticesUnion PracticesAdministrator ReviewBack PayAttorneys' Fees
References
7
Showing 1-10 of 74 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