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
Jul 21, 2004

In re the Claim of Teitelbaum

This case concerns an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The claimant, an account executive for an employer whose products were sold at airport duty-free shops, was terminated after September 11, 2001, due to business decline. She applied for extended unemployment benefits under the Temporary Extended Unemployment Compensation Act of 2002 (TEUC-A) for displaced airline-related workers. Although initially granted by an Administrative Law Judge, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed, finding the employer was neither a supplier nor an upstream producer for an airline. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the connection between the employer's products and the airline industry was too tenuous to qualify the claimant for extended benefits under TEUC-A, and the Board's determination was supported by substantial evidence.

Unemployment InsuranceExtended BenefitsTEUC-ADisplaced WorkersAirline IndustrySupplier DefinitionEligibilityAppellate ReviewSubstantial Evidence
References
2
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

In re the Claim of Kokoni

National Freelancers, Inc. (NFI), a company referring skilled clerical workers, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had found NFI liable for unemployment insurance contributions for a claimant and other similarly situated workers, determining an employer-employee relationship existed. This appeal followed a prior remittal by the court due to NFI being denied the opportunity to cross-examine the claimant. In the renewed proceedings, the Board struck the claimant's testimony but sustained its finding based on other evidence, including testimony from NFI's president. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that the Board correctly interpreted the prior remittal order and that substantial evidence supported the employer-employee relationship finding. The court also rejected NFI's argument regarding the claimant's voluntary unemployment, stating the issue was not timely raised.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployer-Employee RelationshipIndependent ContractorTemporary StaffingAdministrative LawAppellate ReviewDue ProcessCross-ExaminationHearsay EvidenceWaiver
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Marquez

The case involves an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant, an assembler at B & G Electronics, Inc., was discharged for using profanity towards her supervisor. Initially, she reported being laid off for unemployment benefits but later disclosed the true circumstances. The Commissioner of Labor and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled her ineligible for benefits due to misconduct. The court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that her isolated use of profanity under stressful circumstances did not constitute misconduct disqualifying her from benefits, and that her pre-benefit disclosure meant no willful false statement was made. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

misconductunemployment benefits eligibilityinsubordinationprofanityfalse statementemployer dischargeappellate reviewdue processstressful circumstancesisolated incident
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re Exotic Island Enterprises

This case involves appeals by Exotic Island Enterprises and Sliffer Enterprises, Inc., corporations owned by Keith Slifstein, against decisions from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Department of Labor had initially determined that exotic dancers performing at their venues, Fantasy Island Gent Club and Pleasure Island II, were employees, leading to assessments for additional unemployment insurance contributions. An Administrative Law Judge and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board affirmed this determination. The court, in turn, affirmed the Board’s decision, finding substantial evidence that the corporations exercised sufficient direction and control over the dancers to establish an employment relationship. Factors included Slifstein's involvement in dancer selection, scheduling, pricing for private dances, retention of a percentage of earnings, and provision of performance infrastructure. The court also noted the corporations' failure to provide remuneration documentation, allowing the Department to assess contributions based on available information.

Unemployment Insurance AppealExotic Dancers Employee StatusEmployer ControlUnemployment Insurance ContributionsAdministrative Law Judge DecisionWorkers Compensation CoverageLabor Law ComplianceAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidenceBusiness Operations
References
7
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 04, 1993

In re the Claim of Teller

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant, a production manager, was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. This decision was based on the finding that the claimant voluntarily left his employment without good cause. The Board determined that the claimant refused a transfer to a new location, and his reasons for refusal, including unchanged salary, reasonable commuting distance, and non-mandatory overtime, were not considered good cause. The appellate court found substantial evidence to support the Board's conclusion. Consequently, the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Voluntary DepartureGood CauseUnemployment BenefitsTransfer RefusalSubstantial EvidenceProduction ManagerSalary UnchangedCommuting DistanceOvertime Not MandatoryAppellate Review
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Pierre

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The Board found that the claimant, employed as a security officer, was discharged after he threatened, used profanity towards, and lunged at a supervisor following a verbal directive, necessitating restraint and police intervention. This conduct was deemed a violation of the employer's policy against workplace violence. Despite the claimant offering a different account of the incident, the Board credited the testimony of the employer's witnesses. Consequently, the Board's determination of disqualifying misconduct, supported by substantial evidence, was affirmed on appeal.

MisconductUnemployment InsuranceAppeal BoardSecurity OfficerThreatening BehaviorProfanityInsubordinationSupervisorSubstantial EvidencePolicy Violation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Oct 26, 1982

In re the Claim of Peat

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which affirmed a reduction in her unemployment benefits. The reduction was made under Labor Law § 600(7) due to her receipt of Social Security benefits. The court, citing precedents Matter of Cullen and Rivera v Patino, ruled that Social Security benefits derived from a non-base period employer should not offset unemployment benefits from a different base period employer. As the claimant's Social Security benefits vested from prior employment, the board's decision to reduce her unemployment rate was reversed. The case was remitted to the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board for further proceedings.

Unemployment BenefitsSocial Security OffsetLabor Law 600(7)Benefit Rate ReductionPrior EmploymentBase Period EmployerAdministrative AppealRemittitur
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 02, 1971

In re the Claim of Farina

This is an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which determined claimants were entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Claimants lost their employment during a 1970 strike by the United Auto Workers against General Motors Corporation. The Appeal Board found that claimants' specific plants were not on strike and were separate 'establishments' within the statutory definition, thus their lack of employment was not a result of a strike, lockout, or industrial controversy *in their establishment* (Labor Law, § 592, subd. 1). The appellant (General Motors Corporation) contended that claimants' lack of employment was due to a strategic management decision and challenged an alleged illegal assignment of benefits. The court affirmed the Appeal Board's decision, finding substantial evidence, citing controlling authority, and rejecting the claim of illegal benefit assignment.

Unemployment Insurance BenefitsStrike ImpactIndustrial ControversyEstablishment DefinitionLabor Law ApplicationAppellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationBenefit AssignmentGeneral Motors Strike
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 28,231 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