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. 2020 NY Slip Op 00187 [179 AD3d 1228]
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 09, 2020

Matter of Reardon v. Global Cash Card, Inc.

The case, Matter of Reardon v Global Cash Card, Inc., involves an appeal concerning the validity of 12 NYCRR part 192, regulations governing wage payment methods, including payroll debit cards, adopted by the Commissioner of Labor. Global Cash Card, Inc., a payroll debit card service provider, challenged these regulations, leading to their revocation by the Industrial Board of Appeals (IBA). The Commissioner then successfully petitioned the Supreme Court to annul the IBA's determination. On appeal, the Appellate Division affirmed the Supreme Court's decision, concluding that the Commissioner acted within her delegated legislative authority in promulgating the regulations, despite modifying the order to strike certain extraneous proof.

Labor LawWage PaymentPayroll Debit CardsAdministrative RegulationsRule-making AuthorityIndustrial Board of Appeals (IBA)CPLR Article 78Appellate ReviewStatutory InterpretationCommissioner of Labor
References
15
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Watson v. American Can Co.

The claimant, a matron, was injured while returning from cashing her paycheck at a bank, a task undertaken during her lunch break. The employer had changed its payment method from cash to check after a robbery and made special arrangements with a nearby bank to facilitate check cashing for its employees, including increasing tellers and extending hours. Despite the general rule that injuries off-premises during lunch are not compensable, the court found that the journey was partly for the employer's benefit due to its payment policy. Therefore, the activity was deemed sufficiently related to employment. The decision and award of workmen's compensation were affirmed.

Workmen's CompensationEmployer LiabilityInjury during lunch breakCourse of employmentBenefit of employerCheck cashing policyOff-premises injuryAppealsSelf-insured employerAccident
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Lombardi v. City of New York

The administratrix of Albert Lombardi's estate sought recovery from the City of New York for her deceased husband's earned, unused, and unpaid terminal leave, annual leave, and overtime service. Both parties moved for summary judgment. The court denied the claim for unused annual leave, finding no agreement authorizing cash payments for it. However, the court granted the claim for overtime compensation earned on and after January 1, 1971, based on a comptroller's determination explicitly providing for cash payment. Additionally, the court granted the claim for terminal leave allowance, deeming it an earned benefit payable in cash. The case will proceed to an assessment of damages.

Summary judgmentTerminal leaveAnnual leaveOvertime compensationPublic employeesCollective bargaining agreementEstate claimCity of New YorkComptroller's determinationWages
References
21
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Action Electrical Contractors Co. v. Goldin

This appeal addresses a contractor's obligation to provide supplemental fringe benefits under Labor Law § 220 for public works projects. Petitioner, Action Electrical Contractors Co., Inc., was charged by the Comptroller of New York City for failing to provide prevailing supplemental benefits. The core issue was whether cash payments directly to employees could fulfill this obligation, rather than solely providing equivalent in-kind benefits. The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division, ruling that the Comptroller's interpretation prohibiting cash substitutes was arbitrary. The court concluded that legislative intent focused on equalizing minimum labor costs, which is satisfied by cash payments equivalent to the cost of prevailing supplements, and thus, the petitioner had complied with the law.

Public Works ContractsPrevailing WageFringe BenefitsSupplemental BenefitsLabor Law § 220Cash EquivalentCollective Bargaining AgreementEmployer ComplianceStatutory InterpretationAdministrative Determination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Employers' Mutual Liability Insurance v. McLellan

This motion, brought by a plaintiff insurance carrier and Flying Tigers, Inc., sought to stay payment to defendant John Johnstone. The payment was awarded by Deputy Commissioner McLellan under the Longshoremen’s and Harbor Workers’ Compensation Act for the death of James M. Johnstone. Plaintiffs argued that the Deputy Commissioner's findings on dependency and jurisdiction were erroneous and that they would suffer irreparable harm without a stay due to no provision for repayment under the Act. However, the court found the application inadequate, citing insufficient facts, rebutted dependency claims, and legally insufficient assertions of irreparable injury. Consequently, the motion for a stay of payment was denied.

Longshoremen's and Harbor Workers' Compensation ActWorkers' CompensationStay of PaymentPreliminary InjunctionIrreparable HarmDependencyJurisdictionCompensation AwardPenalty for Non-PaymentInsurance Carrier
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Williams v. Glass

The petitioner, a paternal grandmother, sought foster care payments for three children who had been in her custody since July 30, 1988, following their placement by the Department of Social Services (DSS). DSS initially provided payments until July 29, 1988, but subsequently denied further funding, asserting that the foster care placement had automatically terminated. The court, in reviewing the Commissioner's determination, held that under the Interstate Compact on the Placement of Children (Social Services Law § 374-a), DSS, as the sending agency, retained jurisdiction and financial responsibility for the children. The court found that the voluntary 'discharge' of the children to the grandmother was an insufficient basis to terminate DSS's ongoing supervisory and financial responsibilities. Consequently, the Commissioner's determination denying foster care payments was annulled, and the petition seeking such payments was granted.

Foster careInterstate CompactSocial Services LawCPLR article 78Judicial reviewAnnulmentChild custodyFinancial responsibilityAgency responsibilityNew York law
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Joslin v. City of Albany Fire Department

The claimant appealed a Workers’ Compensation Board decision regarding the method of payment for his hearing loss benefits, specifically challenging the biweekly installment plan. The claimant argued that Workers’ Compensation Law § 49-bb, which governs occupational loss of hearing claims, mandated a different payment method. The court rejected this contention, asserting that Workers’ Compensation Law § 15 (3) (m), which covers schedule awards for hearing losses generally, and § 49-cc, which directs occupational loss of hearing compensation to align with § 15 (3), govern the payment. Consequently, the court affirmed that the claimant was entitled to biweekly scheduled payments, consistent with other schedule loss awards.

Hearing lossWorkers' CompensationOccupational diseaseSchedule awardBiweekly paymentsStatutory interpretationAppealCompensation benefitsWorkers' Compensation Board
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Jun 20, 1986

Claim of Foglia v. New York City Housing Authority

The claimant, a New York City Housing Authority police officer, sustained a compensable knee injury in 1974. The case was reopened in 1983 due to increased disability, and the Special Fund for Reopened Cases was put on notice for potential liability under Workers' Compensation Law § 25-a. The issue was whether there was an advance payment of compensation, which would relieve the Special Fund from liability. The claimant testified that he retired in 1983 but had been on limited duty performing clerical work at full salary since 1982 due to his injury. The Workers' Compensation Board determined that these full salary payments for lighter work constituted an advance payment of compensation. The court affirmed the Board's decision, finding substantial evidence to support the determination that an advance payment of compensation relieved the Special Fund from liability.

Workers' Compensation BoardAdvance PaymentSpecial FundReopened CasesDisabilitySchedule LossPolice OfficerLimited DutySubstantial EvidenceFactual Determination
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Claim of Marchese v. New York State Department of Correctional Services

Claimant, injured in October 1997, initially received full wages from their employer, then workers' compensation benefits after employment termination. Following an award of benefits in February 2000, a dispute arose regarding the payment of claimant's counsel fee. The Workers’ Compensation Board ruled that the fee should be paid in installments from continuing payments to the claimant, rather than from the portion reimbursing the employer. Claimant appealed this decision, arguing that continuing payments were subject to adjustment and thus not an award of compensation. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, emphasizing the Board's broad discretion under Workers’ Compensation Law § 24 and finding no unfairness in the payment method, as the award was sufficient to cover both employer reimbursement and the attorneys' lien.

Attorney FeesWorkers' Compensation LawLien on CompensationContinuing PaymentsBoard DiscretionAppellate ReviewEmployer ReimbursementAward Payment MethodStatutory InterpretationCounsel Fee
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Pilot Mechanical Corp. v. Carroll

In this article 78 proceeding, an unnamed petitioner challenged the City of New York's decision to reject its lowest bid for a contract to install diesel fuel systems. The rejection stemmed from the petitioner's failure to comply with Executive Order 89, which mandated that contractors provide a health plan for employees, rather than just supplemental cash payments. The petitioner contended that Executive Order 89 was illegal and that its cash payments satisfied Labor Law § 220. However, the court ruled that Labor Law § 220 differentiates between 'wages' (paid) and 'supplements' (provided), concluding that the City was authorized to require a health plan based on prevailing local practices. The court distinguished the case from Matter of Gottlieb Contr. v Beame, finding that Executive Order 89 was valid and in compliance with the Labor Law. Therefore, the petition was dismissed, and the cross-motion to intervene was denied.

Article 78Public WorksLowest Responsible BidderPrevailing WageLabor LawHealth PlanSupplementsExecutive Order 89Cash PaymentsBid Rejection
References
1
Showing 1-10 of 2,326 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