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
Jan 05, 2011

People v. Bright

This case concerns an appeal from a judgment convicting the defendant of two counts of grand larceny in the fourth degree. The appellate court unanimously affirmed the conviction and sentence. The court rejected the defendant's arguments regarding the legal sufficiency of the evidence for larceny from a person and found the admission of background testimony about 'lush workers' and their pickpocketing methods to be a proper exercise of discretion. The court also found no basis for reducing the sentence.

Grand LarcenyFourth DegreeLarceny from PersonSufficiency of EvidencePolice TestimonyLush WorkersPickpocketing MethodsAdmissibility of Background TestimonySentence ReviewAppellate Affirmation
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 10, 1988

Claim of Coluccio v. Aenco, Inc.

A laborer sustained a low back injury. The Workers' Compensation Board found a permanent total industrial disability due to the injury combined with the claimant's vocational background and discharged the Special Disability Fund, despite a preexisting speech impediment. The employer and its workers' compensation insurance carrier appealed this decision. The appellate court affirmed the Board's findings, concluding that substantial medical evidence supported the total disability award and that the Special Disability Fund was properly discharged, as the total disability was not solely attributable to the preexisting impairment.

Permanent Total Industrial DisabilityLow Back InjuryVocational LimitationsSpecial Disability Fund DischargePreexisting ImpairmentWorkers' Compensation Law § 15Functional IlliteracyMedical Expert TestimonyAppellate ReviewIndustrial Disability
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lazo v. Mak's Trading Co.

The plaintiff, a tractor-trailer operator, delivered rice to the defendant, a New York City wholesale grocer. The defendant hired three men to unload the trailer, one of whom injured the plaintiff during an altercation. The court affirmed the Appellate Division's order, concluding that the defendant did not exercise sufficient control over the day laborers to establish vicarious liability. The decision highlighted that the unloaders worked at their convenience, were not on payroll, and received a single cash payment. Additionally, the court found no duty for the defendant to conduct background checks for this 'as-needed' task.

vicarious liabilityindependent contractorday laborerspersonal injuryemployer liabilityduty to inquireworker controlnegligenceAppellate Division
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Banner Employment Agency, Inc. v. O'Connell

This case concerns the annulment of a respondent's determination that a petitioner employment agency violated Section 185 of the General Business Law by charging an excessive fee. The dispute centered on the classification of an employee for fee calculation, with the respondent advocating for 'Class A1' and the petitioner for 'Class B'. The employee possessed an engineering background and technical experience. The court concluded that the employment did not fit into 'Class A1' or the professional aspect of 'Class B', instead falling under 'Class B's' residual 'other employment' category. Consequently, the respondent's initial determination was annulled.

Employment Agency FeesGeneral Business LawEmployment ClassificationStatutory InterpretationExcessive ChargeJudicial ReviewAnnulmentSkilled WorkerNon-Professional EmploymentClass B Employment
References
1
Case No. 2020 NY Slip Op 00196 [179 AD3d 1263]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Castano v. Westchester Community Coll.

Aurelio Castano, a technical assistant and part-time teacher, filed a workers' compensation claim due to mold and chemical exposure, leading to reactive airway disease and fibromyalgia. Initially, a Workers' Compensation Law Judge classified him with a 78% loss of wage-earning capacity. A panel of the Workers' Compensation Board modified this to a 55% loss, considering his educational background and certifications. The full Board upheld this modification, and the Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, finding it adequately explained and supported by substantial evidence. The court considered conflicting medical opinions and Castano's vocational capabilities.

Permanent Partial DisabilityLoss of Wage-Earning CapacityFibromyalgia ClaimReactive Airway DiseaseMold Exposure InjuryVocational FactorsMedical Expert TestimonyCredibility AssessmentAppellate Division Third DepartmentWorkers' Compensation Board
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 04, 1998

Claim of Campbell v. AC Rochester Products

The case involves an appeal from a Workers’ Compensation Board decision concerning a claimant who suffered multiple work-related injuries, leading to a classification of permanent partial disability. The Board initially ruled that the claimant did not have a total industrial disability and had no further causally related reduced earnings. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board’s findings, citing substantial evidence that the claimant retained employability suitable for various jobs consistent with his background and had not actively sought work or participated in vocational rehabilitation since January 1993. This supported the conclusion that he lacked a total industrial disability and further causally related reduced earnings.

Workers' CompensationIndustrial DisabilityPermanent Partial DisabilityReduced EarningsVocational RehabilitationEmployabilityWork-Related InjuryAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceQuestion of Fact
References
6
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Empire Blue Cross & Blue Shield v. Consolidated Welfare Fund

Empire Blue Cross and Blue Shield (Empire) sued the Consolidated Welfare Fund and other defendants for breach of contract, fraud, and RICO violations. The defendants moved for partial judgment on the pleadings, asserting that the state law claims were preempted by ERISA. The court analyzed whether the Fund qualified as an 'employee welfare benefit plan' (EWBP) under ERISA. Finding that the Fund, with its 'associate members' from diverse backgrounds and commercial solicitation, did not meet the criteria of an EWBP, the court concluded that ERISA preemption did not apply. Therefore, the defendants' motion for partial judgment on the pleadings was denied, allowing Empire's state law claims to proceed.

ERISA PreemptionEmployee Welfare Benefit PlanHealth Insurance FraudLabor Union MembershipAssociate MembersRule 12(c) MotionFederal Civil ProcedureStatutory InterpretationCommercial Insurance SchemesDistrict Court Ruling
References
11
Case No. 2022 NY Slip Op 00080 [201 AD3d 1045]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 06, 2022

Matter of Fiorelli (Stallion Express, LLC--Commissioner of Labor)

The case concerns Charlene Fiorelli's claim for unemployment insurance benefits after her delivery courier services for Stallion Express, LLC (SE) concluded. The Department of Labor determined she was an employee, making SE liable for contributions, a decision affirmed by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. SE appealed, contending Fiorelli was an independent contractor. The Appellate Division, Third Department, affirmed the Board's ruling, finding substantial evidence of an employer-employee relationship based on SE's significant control over Fiorelli's work, including mandatory uniforms, background checks, training, scheduled routes, and specific delivery and documentation procedures.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorDelivery CourierUnemployment Insurance Appeal BoardSubstantial EvidenceControl TestDepartment of LaborLogistics BusinessAppellate Division
References
9
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 21, 2000

T. W. v. City of New York

This personal injury action arises from the sexual assault of an infant plaintiff by Anthony Monroe, an employee of the Police Athletic League (PAL) at a community center. Plaintiffs sued PAL for negligent hiring, retention, and supervision. The trial court initially granted summary judgment for PAL, dismissing the complaint. However, the appellate court modified the decision, denying summary judgment on the claims of negligent hiring and retention, and negligent supervision of the children. The court found that factual issues existed regarding PAL's duty to investigate Monroe's criminal background, given its knowledge of a prior conviction, and its duty to supervise the children.

Negligent HiringNegligent RetentionNegligent SupervisionSexual AssaultPersonal InjurySummary JudgmentCriminal Background CheckEmployer LiabilityProximate CauseYouth Programs
References
8
Case No. 2017 NY Slip Op 00385
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 19, 2017

Curry v. Hundreds of Hats, Inc.

Plaintiff Roslyn Curry, an experienced background actress, sought damages for injuries sustained after being struck by an ATVC camera truck during a movie filming. Defendants, including Hundreds of Hats, Inc., George Nolfi, Gambit Productions, Inc., and Electric Shepherd Productions, moved for summary judgment, citing protection under the Worker's Compensation Law or a lack of involvement in the production. The Supreme Court granted summary judgment. However, the Appellate Division, First Department, reversed this decision, ruling that the motion was premature given the incomplete discovery and the fact that essential information regarding the defendants' roles and relationships was exclusively within their control.

Summary JudgmentPremature DiscoveryWorker's Compensation LawAppellate ReviewFilm ProductionPersonal InjuryEmployment RelationshipsJudicial NoticeProcedural LawDiscovery Disputes
References
3
Showing 1-10 of 41 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